Topic: So, is MKWorld overpriced?

I firmly believe that MKWorld is worth $80. State your opinion, but I'll still buy it. And what's more, this is the grim reality for the future of gaming. If you can't take $80 for what could be a genre-definer, and will definitely be a great game, you better quit gaming now. Because in twenty years, $80 will likely be seen as a very reasonable price for a game.

@MoldyPasta
$80 is too expensive in my opinion.
But, I can always hunt for the used games for cheaper option.
It doesn't mean I have to quit from gaming just because I can't afford for $80.

Yes, welcome to Nintendo Greed.

It looks like a MK game. Doesn't look like anything mindblowing to justify $80, I feel like most people are going for the bundle instead

As someone who paid $30 for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and never bought the DLC... I'll just say it is expensive by my personal Mario Kart standards 😆

That said, DK costs almost as much and I will begrudgingly shell out for it. The prices can't be too crazy if people are willing to pay them.

Yes, it is. A line has to be drawn. If we excuse every single game that raises its price, what stops companies from selling us standard editions that exceed 100 bucks?

No, I don't think so. When I saw the reveal for Mario Kart World, I told my little brother it is a "name your price" game (within reason). I don't know at what price I would've skipped World, but it's certainly not $80. I think it'll be a much better Mario Kart experience than Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, which I have over 100 hours in, so the value is already there and then some. My intention, since I see myself playing World a lot thanks to free roam, is to get the bundle that way it's always there on my Switch 2 rather switching game cards in and out.

My hot take is Pokemon BD/SP is more overpriced than this Mario Kart.

In a world where wages actually rose, I would be significantly angrier with that and gen 9 being full priced games than Mario Kart being full priced + 20. Especially since Mario Kart 8 was arguably consistently a good deal (get a free game for buying it on Wii U, be a solid Deluxe version on Switch with (rare) free updates, well priced DLC that you got for free on Expansion Pass).

This is a complex question that requires nuance.

First, one must acknowledge that what constitutes an "acceptable price" will vary from consumer to consumer. What's acceptable to you may not be acceptable to me. Ergo, what's overpriced to me may not be overpriced to you. Over-pricing means something is priced higher than it's inherent value warrants.

Most of the gaming community is incapable of having these more nuanced discussions. It usually becomes a reductive outcry of "overpriced" and "anticonsumer" and "corporate greed". We've already addressed the "overpriced" aspect. Let's take a look at the other two.

First, let's talk about corporate greed. I find this notion somewhat misleading because corporations' primary purpose is to make as much profit as possible. "Greed" implies morality is an inherent aspect of economics. But there is no morality in economics. It's business. It's voluntary transactions. A seller determines the minimum price they're willing to accept to part with their product, while a buyer determines the maximum price they're willing to pay to gain that product. When the two overlap, a voluntary transaction takes place. When they do not overlap, no voluntary transaction takes place.

A buyer may deem an asking price higher than what they personally are willing to pay for the product. This happens all the time. Does that mean the seller is being greedy? The buyer expects a reasonable price and the seller wants too much. Or does it mean the buyer is being greedy? The seller expects a reasonable price and the buyer wants to pay too little. Both are true and neither are true. Because a seller has every right to value and price the products they own however they wish. If it's so high that no buyers bite, then the seller simply won't profit from any sales. Likewise, a buyer has every right to value products for sale however they wish, and choose to either purchase or not purchase. If they're not willing to pay the asking price then the buyer simply won't enjoy the product (but they get to keep their money). The invisible hand of the free market has no morality.

That's not to say sellers can't be greedy. They absolutely can be. But that doesn't take away a consumer's right to choose to not buy. So if the greed gets out of hand, consumers will choose not purchase and the seller will suffer. But consumers have an equal propensity toward greed. Always wanting as much as possible while paying as little as possible. Consumer greed has played just as much a part in the race to the bottom as corporate greed.

As for the accusations of anticonsumerism... this is the most difficult subject to tackle of the three. Every consumer will have their own perspective. Different people will see varying degrees of anticonsumerism, some may not even see it at all. But when you have a voluntary transaction involving two parties- buyer and seller, why does everything have to be pro-buyer (aka anti-seller)? The seller has just as much vested interest as the buyer. But nobody ever cares about the seller. Because consumers are only concerned about themselves... they're greedy.

Of course we as consumers want things that benefit us the most. But sellers likewise want things that benefit them the most. Neither are wrong for this. The market hinges upon the fulcrum where negotiations meet in the middle. So what really constitutes anticonsumerism? Buyer and seller are diametrically opposed by nature. So everything the seller does is in their own interest (and against the interest of the buyer, aka anticonsumer), while everything the buyer does is in their own interest (and against the interest of the seller, aka antivendor).

At the end of the day, labeling things as anticonsumer makes little sense to me since everything companies do is in their own interest and thus against (anti) the desires of the buyer (consumer). Likewise, labeling things as antivendor makes little sense because everything buyers do is in their own interest and thus against (anti) the desires of the seller (vendor).

The implication is that sellers are being immoral for setting a higher asking price. We know inflation is real. It's an established fact inflation has risen 23% since the launch of PS5/XSX. We know tariffs are real. It's an established fact Chinese manufactured products face a 145% tariff charge, while Vietnamese products face 10% (soon to be more). So we know sellers need to make up those losses by passing on some of the costs. Yet consumers accuse companies of immorality when they do so. Exhibition A of consumer greed being just as bad as corporate greed.

But even if there was 0% inflation over the last decade and 0% tariffs, a seller still retains the right to ask whatever they want for products they own. Just as consumers retain the right to buy or not buy a product. But consumers have developed a sense of entitlement these past few decades. They feel they are "owed" games at certain prices. They feel they are "owed" orange clearance stickers after X amount of time. As SkillUp said, they feel games should have AAA graphics, gobs of content and tons of replayability, no microtransactions, the same nominal price games had decades ago regardless of inflation, with well paid developers that are never crunched. And fail to realize you can't have your cake and eat it too. Choose 3 or 4 of those, but you're rarely going to get all 5.

I believe some games are worth $80. I believe some games are worth $100. While others I believe aren't even worth $10. It just depends on the game. With an $80 price, fewer games will pass my criteria for being a day one purchase. But some will still pass. Mario Kart World has AAA graphics (check), tons of content with gobs of replayability (check), no microtransactions (check) and Nintendo are one of the few who pay their developers very well and definitely don't force them to crunch (check). Unfortunately, the price is $10 higher than the accepted $70 standard established half a decade ago. But I still deem the game's value as exceeding the asking price.

And at the end of the day, the only one who can answer the question of whether it's priced too high... is the market. If the game sells well, then it wasn't overpriced. Nobody likes paying more, and there will certainly be some lost sales from consumers who don't feel the game's value exceeds the asking price. For those people the game is overpriced. For the ones who buy it, the game is not overpriced.

I think far too much has been made of this, personally. We spend half a grand on new consoles, most of us owning multiple systems, several hundred dollars more in accessories (controllers, storage, screen protectors, cases, docks, etc.), hundreds of dollars in online subs each generation, and hundreds of dollars for games each generation (thousands of dollars for many of us). An extra $10 once per year for that select tippity-top-tier game that gets the full $79.99 MSRP seems rather trivial, tbh. Maybe 6-7 games from Nintendo release this generation at $80. Buy one less game over the next 8 years and you've covered that extra cost for the entire gen. So instead of 25 games you buy 24.

And I don't just make this argument for Nintendo. I made the same argument when Sony raised game prices to $70. And I'll make the same argument for Microsoft raising their game prices to $80. And for Switch 2 accessories increasing $5-10. And for PS5 and PS+ getting two price increases this generation. And for Xbox Series seeing $80-130 price increases. It's ultimately their products and they retain the right to set prices however they wish. We retain the right to not purchase anything we feel is too expensive.

Value is relative. You could spend thousands of hours on genshin impact or honkai star rail and never pay a single $ or spend a fortune and play much less. It's up to the consumer if they are willing to pay the asking price, wait for a sale or skip the game entirely.

A lot of people have been vocal about the price, with many admitting they would get the switch 2 eventually.

In the end we are looking at a $20 increase for a game many people will be playing for years, maybe even up to 8 years. Thats $10 per year for a crazy amount of fun.

Don't make life harder for yourself when it doesn't need to be. You're getting a Switch 2 anyway so get the bundle with the game for £34, don't vote for the guy who's economic plan is something something tariffz and lift the toilet seat up.

@jump 100% this

I’m not even a big MKW fan, but getting the bundle seems common sense… £34 for latest MK is a non-brained, even as a lukewarm fan of the franchise

I appreciate that many people value physical media, me included actually, but I’m quickly adopting a mindset of “does anyone truly own anything anymore” and just going all in on digital I think

I partly wonder if N priced the singular MK game so high, in an effort to steer people towards the bundle and therefore almost shoe-horning consumers into the mindset of ‘beginning their Switch2 journey with a digital game’ (MKW) and perhaps intending they would continue to do so

Yes, too much if you just play it like a party game, a few tracks now and then with friends.

No, probably ok if you're putting hundreds of hours in to it.

I'm in the middle of that, so the bundle feels ok for me. I would not pay $80.

@CJD87
I came to that crossroads myself and realized nobody cares besides me, and it's no fun if you can't share that joy with others. Plus there's no difference between a digital file stored on a plastic cartridge and a digital file stored on a plastic mSD. It's literally the same thing, the form factor is just different.

Plus digital allows you to copy the contents of the mSD to another mSD or USB drive or SSD or PC to backup in case you lose the mSD or the card fails. And digital includes a 20+ year warranty where you can redownload if needed. Aaand, it's so much more convenient having your entire library available without having to swap cartridges.

@CJD87 While Nintendo's moves like Virtual Game Cards and Key Cards do seem to exist as a tool to try to push people in the direction of digital, I think the bundle's primary purpose is to try and prevent confusion surrounding Switch 2. Having the console by itself being the only option could easily result in people thinking that upgrading from Switch 1 to Switch 2 is like upgrading from iPhone 15 to iPhone 16. Meanwhile having the console bundled with a game that's Switch 2 exclusive reduces the chance of confusion.

it looks like a fun game that will sell well, but im still not feeling that $80 value of content outside of superfluous things like better graphics, and the extra planning that went into making an open-world map of interconnected courses. for all we can tell it could have the same amount of tracks as MK8

they were very calculated with the bundle. everyone will criticize an $80 game, but a $450 console with a $50 game bundle is a no brainer. now we're ready to by the rest of their $70-80 games

I'm so sick and tired of open-world being praised to the heavens as a good thing. Open-world means nothing if there's not much to do. And from what I've seen so far of doing minor things like coin collecting and driving on flat/boring roads, it's leaning on pointlessness.

@NotASockPuppet
Not really.
I have played some Open World style games from 3rd party developers such as Yonder The Cloud Catcher Chronicles, LEGO CITY UNDERCOVER, Go Vacation, Fantasy Life 3DS, Dragon Quest Builders 1 & 2, etc and they are pretty enjoy to play.
Sometimes, whenever I felt bored to play certain games, I choose the Open World style games just for wandering around, enjoy the scenery and maybe finish the unfinished sub quests.
I think the complaint about Open World style was from gamers who have tendency playing 1st party Nintendo games that have very conservative mindset about accepting different ideas while the gamers who enjoy Open World style was from gamers who played mostly 3rd party games.
I played mostly 3rd party games so I have quite a lot of different gaming experiences and not stuck on 1st party Nintendo games only.

Without a doubt, yes. There's always a game that will give you more value, time with the game, and cost less. But if you're just comparing the last Mario Kart game to this one it's much more money and you probably can still play it longer. But if you're willing to pay for the 'new' experience then it's okay for you... But just so you know if the 80 dollar game sells 10 million copies you're never going to get a AAA Nintendo game for less than 80 again, and probably all new games save indies will be that expensive as well.

That's where the value for me is in passing. But let's face it, 2/3 of all people are going to do what is easy and bad for humanity.

@NotASockPuppet
Open world isn't automatically praised as a good thing. Its just a design choice some games have. It can be either good or bad.

I also hate boring open worlds. But this isn't one of them. One of the biggest differentiators is the fact this is a racing game first and foremost. It still offers the same experience you got from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Racing 4 track cups, battle mode, time trials, and even offers a new Knockout Tour mode. The seamless world is just a cherry on top- a bonus above and beyond the main game. It facilitates the Knockout Tour mode, and freshens up Grand Prix by allowing players to drive between courses. The series needed a bit of a shake up... the open world provides that.

And given the fact it's a racing game, you're not gonna get fully fledged RPG quest lines and shrines scattered around with dungeons and stuff. The content needs to be gameplay focused, which it is. We see exploration and discovery (finding secrets scattered around the world) and skill-based challenges (missions tasking the player with overcoming a specific obstacle or series of obstacles).

If there was no Grand Prix. Was no Time Trials. Was no Knockout Tour. Was no Battle Mode. If the game was exclusively driving around the open world finding secrets and completing skill-based missions... then I would concede the point. Because then, no. It wouldn't be enough. But as an addition to an already complete game that enhances the experience? I think it's absolutely 🔥 🔥 🔥