Topic: Do you believe that there is a place for $70(USD) base price games on switch?

@Link-Hero I'm curious if you could provide a list of games that seriously lacked content at launch. I agree the sports games they've been making lately are light on content, at least from an outsider's perspective (I haven't actually played them) but otherwise, I can't think of many examples.

Games getting majority of their sales at launch is the norm. Nintendo games keep their value because they can do that. Their games sell more on a single console than most 3rd party games do on all consoles combined. Even more niche titles like Xenoblade hit millions of units sold while actual big hitters show up in sales charts years after release.

I watched a documentary once about video game sales and the general consensus is that developers and publishers would love to sell their games at full price and do smaller sales once in a while (basically what Nintendo does) but there's way too much competition which leads to games basically not selling at all after launch unless they drop the prices drastically. Cost of making games has increased over the years while the sale price has gone down. It's a bad situation to be in.

I don't want 70€ to be the norm in the future, I doubt anyone does, but I wouldn't mind if there weren't as many sales as there are, as often as there are. It's not the greatest situation for the consumer either. I personally end up buying games at low price I don't plan on playing for a while since I have other games I'm already playing while other games I never end up getting because I'm always waiting for even lower price or I end up grabbing another game instead.

For example, I loved Mario + Rabbids but I'm not getting the sequel at launch because it's Ubisoft and knowing them I can get the game for 20€ or less just months after release. Possibly for 10€ if I wait a bit longer. But when the time comes, it also needs to compete with all the other games that are on sale at the same time. I may end up picking something like Hades instead which is in the same situation.

@Late I felt the Nintendo games with limited content at launch on Switch were:

• Mario Tennis Aces
• Mario Golf Super Rush
• Mario Strikers Battle League
• Super Mario Party
• Animal Crossing New Horizons

Switch Sports and Mario Party Superstars are kind of a middle ground where more content would've helped more with replayability but it's mostly comparable to previous games so I wouldn't say limited content. Both Wii Sports had 5 sports meanwhile Switch Sports has 6 sports (Switch Sports will be more than 6 after updates), most Mario Party games have 6 boards but Superstars has 5 (the 6th one is usually a Bowser board at the end but Superstars doesn't have one).

I find it funny people complain prices of Nintendo games but yet remain quiet when xbox/ps5 comes in at high prices they pay them and but when Nintendo it is a Taboo when this happens. Games don't come cheap to develop they can take years. Developers have to make a living even if they are greedy if that is the case then don't buy it. You can always buy it when it goes on sale or drops in price years later but oh wait you want your cake and eat it-not going to happen.

@SwitchForce You clearly have never stepped foot into Push Square.

I don't know the answer to that question. I think it best to take it on a game by game basis. But what I do know is this. There isn't any room for a $70 Skyrim game on the eshop. What were Microsoft thinking??

I've literally seen zero people praise games from other consoles for doing things they've complained about on Nintendo.

Not just here, anywhere, I've never seen this happen from a single person, for this specific example.

This discussion is pointless.

To date, no $70 game has released on the Nintendo Switch. Skyrim was NOT a $70 game. It was a $60 game bundled with $20 DLC for a discount. You can criticize the price, you can criticize the fact it’s less on other platforms, but one thing you cannot do is claim this is the same thing as a $70 base game.

There is a clear, unequivocal difference between a game that DOES have a $60 version, with optional versions including extra content for more, and a game that does NOT have a $60 version, and only sells the game for a base price of $70. The two are not the same.

I rejected $70 games on PlayStation and I will reject them on Switch 2. Not that I think that’s going to happen because I don’t. But if it were to happen I’d be extremely selective with the games I purchase day one and would wait for sales to drop $10 to buy the rest (since I currently buy all games day 1 at $60). I don’t see this happening and I certainly don’t see it happening this generation. People are straight paranoid if they think that’s going to happen mid generation. I don’t give a flying flip about Zelda or anything else- it’s GONNA be $60. Period.

@Link-Hero
Everyone else decreases the cost steadily over a few years since doing so helps keep the game selling consistently. With Nintendo's greedy strategy, their titles sell a large amount at the start before quickly reducing to next to nothing not long after

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.

Most developers decrease price over time not out of charity, or lack of greed, but because quantity demanded has been exhausted at the current price and they’re willing to set precedent of sale prices for an immediate payout via increased quantity demanded. But they pay the price long term, as more gamers then are conditioned to wait for a sale price. Ubisoft is a prime example.

Those that don’t decrease price over time aren’t doing so out of “greed”, but rather out of a desire to maximize profit- the same reason other publishers DO decrease price over time. They both have the exact same motivations, they’re just going about it two different ways. Each believes their approach maximizes profit for their games. “Greed” has nothing to do with it. To imply a game “must” go on sale, and if it doesn’t it’s due to “greed”, is a fundamental misunderstanding of economic principles.

I would also add, Nintendo games sell for long periods of time. Even if they’re not massive evergreens doing millions, all their games continue to sell hundreds of thousands of extra copies over their lifespan, at the minimum. But even if they didn’t, it has nothing to do with “greed”. It has to do with a desire to maximize profit. But the companies who are discounting their titles also want to maximize their profit. As I said before, they have the same exact motivations. One is not “greedier” than the other. We are not “owed” sale prices. Failing to provide us with sale prices does not make a company “greedy”. On the contrary, the “greediest” companies (I speak as a fool here) are the ones who DO engage in constant sales. They are willing to sacrifice price integrity for the benefit of short term financial gain.

Even if Nintendo games didn’t exhibit longer sales curves, there is a price to be paid for deep sales. It obliterates price integrity and conditions consumers to wait for a sale, which then costs them for every single future release. And the more games they do it for, the more it conditions consumers and the bigger loss they incur. Which particular strategy produces the largest total profit is something none of us can know. But judging by Nintendo‘s sales data I’d wager they’ve made the correct choice. And since we are not entitled to sales, as if by waiting we somehow “earn the right” to pay less, there’s really nothing to say on the matter. They sell their games how they want and you can choose to buy them or not buy them.

@Link-Hero
If you actually look at sales curves for games on other platforms, it's not even remotely close to a steady rate. Like 80% of a game's sales are in the first 3 weeks, 90% by the 12th week. There are rare exceptions of course. But there is a statistically significant difference between sales curves on PS/Xbox/PC and on Switch (even for 3rd party games).

On Switch, sales continue long after the decline normally seen on other platforms, even without a discount. They continue to fall gradually over time, but not nearly as much as other platforms. There are multiple reasons for this. But namely, a large majority of Nintendo gamers are conditioned to not expect sales due to Nintendo maintaining price integrity, and thus have a higher proclivity to purchase at full price or with lower discounts over longer periods of time.

You're right that sales are done to increase quantity demanded on other platforms, but that's because it's necessary on other platforms, as the audience has been conditioned to expect sales due to the system sellers not maintaining price integrity (which I attribute to the fact the system sellers on other platforms are largely annualized releases such as CoD, AC and sports titles). As a result of that conditioning, other publishers are caught in the current and must then also discount because the sales curves are so front loaded.

Not so on Switch. And that's because despite games falling off, they don't fall off nearly as much, and publishers don't want to destroy that precious price integrity (and it is precious, as it has been completely obliterated on every other platform). Some do anyways, such as Ubisoft, but that's their choice. It costs them in the long term because now ppl are conditioned to expect a severe price drop soon after release. And games like Mario Rabbids Sparks of Hope are going to reap the whirlwind as a result. It's the cost of destroying your price integrity. But hey, it's their game and their choice to do so.

But neither approach is "right" or "wrong".

Meanwhile the argument about $70 Switch games still goes on, I have limited the Switch games picking before purchase as more 3rd party multi console games I will pick on PS4 / PS5 version while for the Switch games, it will be only 1st party and 3rd party exclusives I can pick.

Is this how it is in US or is it an exaggeration? Physical, digital or both? I'm simply curious since I'm from Europe and we get 33% sales, at least on eShop. Nintendo games tend to go for full 60€ for the first year or two and then they go for 40€ for a week or two once or twice a year, unless they're Smash or Animal Crossing. I also buy the games I want at launch using their voucher system which makes their games cost 50€ instead of 60€ from the get go.

I can't really speak for physical since the prices may vary a lot more within Europe. Where I live, games that cost 60€ on eShop are generally 50€-55€ without discounts which happen occasionally. Then there are some random occasions you find games for way cheaper than normal. I preordered Pikmin 3 for Wii U for half its intended price. I still wonder what happened there.

As for the permanent price drop, are you talking about Nintendo Selects line? That tends to happen in the latter half of the system's lifespan but 10 years, again, is bit of an exaggeration. Nintendo games that are part of the Nintendo Selects line go from 60€ to 20€. That's 66% off. I'd say that's pretty good. Now, there's no telling when Switch gets Nintendo Selects games or if it even does, but I'd certainly get some games I've missed over the years.

I'm not here to cause ruckus. I'm genuinely curious to hear if the pricing of games differs that much between US and Europe. Euro also used to be way stronger than dollar so 60€ was about $70 to begin with.

@Late I think the games go on sale less often in the US. Although you may occasionally see a company like GameStop or Walmart discount a smaller Nintendo game by $10-$20.

Usually Nintendo games go on sale at around 33% off or less digitally, but it's never often.

i think paying 70 bucks is way too damn much for any new videogame whether thats going to happen or not in the near future

Id rather spend that much on clothes or groceries anyway

As an aside, I'm curious as to why second-hand games are rarely mentioned on these boards.

People go on about rarely getting a discount / sale on physical games, but second-hand ones usually have a decent reduction.

Honestly? I feel like it should become the norm. The average new AAA game price has stayed the same for so long, and infaltion has 100% cost them a lot of practical profit. Game prices have been going down by that logic, so a slight price increse like that is definitely warranted at this point.
Edit: To clarify, I believe if there is a price increse nintendo should release finished games and in-game purcahses should be removed.

You could say that about any hobby.

Yeah, I remember NES and SNES games costing at least 399,- in Finnish Marks back in their times. Which would've been about $40 at the time. Counting for inflation, those games would today be at least around 104,15€ apiece. I think I've spotted 699,- SNES ads at some point, which'd be around 180€.
So games have definitely become cheaper over the years, but consoles have remained about the same at the 300€ range, with NES being 1200,- in '91.

So with the future trend of money being worth less in the future, I see 70€ for AAA titles as being inevitable. 70€ as the default for all games, whether as carts or digital? Nuh-uh.
And if it'd ever get to 100€ base price? Yeah, I'll start exclusively delving my 6000-title pile of shame rather than increasing it.

I'm tracking sales on PSPrices, and anything above 50% seems to be an exceptional rarity for anything other than indie titles. And the price history for some titles is a straight line. So I'm tracking titles for the Switch only if they're significantly more "fitting" on a Nintendo than PC or if they're exclusive to the Switch.

Wii U and 3DS tracking is for pre-empting titles on my purchase program before the store closes permanently.

The world is on a crash course right now, and 'everything' is going to go up in price, games are not going to avoid it anymore than anything else is.

I think consumers are also a massive issue for the industry, people wanting amazing graphics, 60fps etc. it's pushing the cost of making games too high, shame on you all lol.

For me graphics advancement has slowed down significantly since like 2005 when you compare everything before that.
And I don't really care for 60fps, as long as the game doesn't visibly chug.

I wonder if the market response to the more powerful technology being more expensive would be to focus more on art style than going for ultra high definition absolute photorealism?

The thing is most system pushing 60fps are already a problem let along a Dedicated Gaming Desktop or Laptop that is SLI/CF already has issues pushing 60fps on 4K now. Why does people think a Xbox/PS will do any better?? Those Gaming System put to shame the Xbox/PS consoles so let's not go that route shall we-if people want to compare xbox/ps to switch one can do in reverse Gaming Desktop/Laptop will put to shame xbox/psx systems. As to Prices $70usb is for big box release with packing that one can live with but that is the extreme I seen new release for far less. This is all clickbat on prices. Big Brand name always command prices that's part of the territory of gaming sales. And smaller developers I've seen prices coming in less then the so called $70usd price tag not all games will cost this.