Topic: Does anyone else think the "Switch tax" puts you off buying some games on the Switch?

Yeah but then I'd have to live in the US

@JasmineDragon Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze (Wii U): €50
Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze (Switch): €60

@Octane Come on, dude. That's a completely different phenomenon and you know it. Video games cost more this generation, it's a fact of life that's been documented on hundreds of websites. Every game manufacturer raised the prices of their games this gen on every console.

The same thing happened in every other aspect of life, too, by the way. When I get my cup of java at Dunkin Donuts and recall that it costs more than it did in 2014, I don't go off muttering like a crazy person about a mythical Dunkin Donuts Tax. Starbucks raised their prices, too, and so did the local independent coffee shop. Prices go up, not down. It's a thing.

@Octane - Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze (Wii U): €50
Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze (Switch): €60 -

And Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze SELECT (Wii U): €20.

@JasmineDragon Wii U is the same generation. Many Wii U games were €60; from Wind Waker HD and 3D World, to Breath of the Wild and Pikmin 3.

I for one don't consider "Switch tax" the fact that an old game which has been on phones for free has a price tag. That's not Switch tax. Switch tax is when a game is released alongside Xbox One and PS4 versions and the Switch one is 5 to 10 euros/dollars/pounds more expensive.

It's true (allegedly) that card format is more expensive, OK, but publishers could assume the cost. Because some do and some don't. Sega, for example, charges us the same for Switch versions of its games. Capcom, on the other hand, has the Switch tax. They're both big developers and publishers and take different approaches to the issue. But many indie titles are released with low prices -that is when they are- (not counting here expensive limited releases), so if those small companies can, certainly Capcom does too.

The fact that games on Blu-ray format get better discounts (and sooner) is something I count on, and that's the reason I never buy them when they're freshly released, and wait for months. But that happens with time. Not day one. When prices are different on day one whatever explanation (if there is one at all) is exceedingly demanding girlfriends.

So sometimes I don't want to pay the Switch tax, and sometimes I bow my head. I did it with Street Fighter 30th Anniversary Collection because I very much wanted it on-the-go, but I'll probably won't in Mega Man 11's case.

There is no "Switch Tax." There's a "new system tax," if anything. Games cost less on other platforms because they're already been out for years and seen price drops.

The fact that people think a company should price a newly ported game like DOOM at $20 just because the price has sunk down that low on the platforms it has been on for years absolutely blows my mind.

Sometimes physical games are more expensive on the system, but that seems to be down to the cost of using game cards as the choice of physical media. It only ever seems to happen with cheaper games.

@Ralizah I agree expecting games to be 20 bucks because they are already available on other systems is silly and naive, but as I said in my previous post, for me the Switch tax is the higher price tag when its games get released the same day as the competition's versions. If they're more expensive to produce, then why some companies assume the cost and mantain the same price tag and others -usually the biggest- don't? That's the problem, for me.

@Octane I'm not going to get into a semantic argument about console generations, because that's just a silly thing to spend my time on. Regardless of where you stand on that, it's an undisputable fact that things in 2018 cost more than they did in 2014.

You wouldn't go to a clothing store and demand that a pair of Levis should cost the same as they did four years ago "because it's the same pair of jeans and this is still the same generation". You would look around at literally every single item on the shelves, in every store everywhere in every country, realize that inflation is a real thing, and buy your jeans at the 2018 prices.

This only really seems to affect cheap games with physical versions. When these games launch digitally first, they're the same price as on other platforms.

@JasmineDragon Inflation doesn't account for a difference of €10. €50 in 2014 is about €51.66 today. On top of that, nearly all games I know of tend to decrease in price as time goes on. I have never seen one get more expensive as a re-release. It was originally priced below the standard €60; they even released a Nintendo Selects title of the game for €20. I personally don't understand why the Switch release had to be €60.

Has the Switch tax put me off buying? Nope. As a gamer who has enjoyed this hobby of ours for over thirty-five years I'm enamored of the Switch. I think it's the finest product Nintendo has ever produced. And I think that in the end (once the console has three or four years worth of exclusive games in its library) it'll go down as Nintendo's most beloved home console.

@JasmineDragon I think the flip side of that though is Nintendo games generally don't depreciate as fast as other consoles, and since Nintendo doesn't really have "75%off" type sales like Steam/PS+/DwG, the overall net effect is that the same library costs more, or significantly more, on Switch than on any other platform. So there is a premium fee for dedicating to Switch, whether we call it "Switch Tax" or not. Heck, MHW has already been cheaper, more than once, than MHGU's big sale the other week, and MHGU is an enhanced port of a 3DS game.

@Ralizah "The fact that people think a company should price a newly ported game like DOOM at $20 just because the price has sunk down that low on the platforms it has been on for years absolutely blows my mind."

On paper, I agree, but the problem becomes, with a Nintendo console, how much of it's population is multi-console gamers? If it was a wholly separate market, Nintendo owners and PS4 owners never overlap, then yeah, selling to the new market means it's a self contained ecosystem and you start at full price. But the reality is a possibly significant portion of Switch owners are also other console/PC owners. And when faced with "Heres a game that you can pay $60 for less graphically impressive version you can also play portably, or a superior looking version you can't play portably for $14 on sale this week" what version is the majority of that population going to buy?

That's where the "new release full price" thing is breaking down in practice. It's not an isolated market, so price conscious consumers will shop for the best deal, and Switch sales volume suffers. I definitely think a lot of the "3rd parties don't sell on Switch" image comes from the results of that.

The catch is, if a publisher is just selling to the same audience on any platform, why port to Switch at all?

Shurgs. Develompent isn't free and I don't expect a company to eat costs just because they have a game on sale somewhere else. Consumers put too many things in general buckets when that isn't how it works. I am paying to play on the switch; many of these games I either didn't finish (or start) or buy on the other system anyway (my copy of diablo III on 360 is still in the shrinkwrap). So long as it is below at or 60 for a normal game and includes dlc I'm in.

@NEStalgia Nah. Older games are re-released on PS4 and PC for full price all the time, and it never seems to be an issue then. Remember that controversy when Monster Hunter World launched for full price on Steam recently, even though the price had sunk to $35 or so for the home console versions? Me neither.

I imagine there are plenty of current and future Switch owners who don't own a PS4 and appreciate these ports. There are also a substantial number of us who prefer fully portable versions of our games.

If a person wants a game, owns a home console, and doesn't care about portability, then they likely own the game and were never the audience for such a port to begin with.

Heck, some people just prefer playing on particular consoles anyway. It's like asking what the point was of porting Hollow Knight when it's a low-impact 2D game that's been fully available on PC since 2017. Don't most of these PS4 owners own a computer?

Heck, why ask for the new Diablo game on PC? Don't you people own phones?!

There's some switch tax, evidently, though it's not as simple as "put game in store" and therefore, sometimes it's justified. Though some games... looking at you, transistor!

Certain games beg the question: do I want to play this off screen? Diablo 3 is one of those. I haven't bought it yet because of the price though, but will buy it for switch once time and cash allow. Some exclusives on ps4 are also nice, which I have now, so I wonder - why buy expensive? It's only for the games you really want to play exclusively on the system (no alternatives) or take with you. Turns out a lot of the gaming I do is not in front of the tv.

Which will change as my new tv and ps4 backlog are lurking, but there you have it. An in-betweener like me? Not shelling out for diablo 3 so easily.

Well the from the reads it doesn't sound like alot of people thought of this. Porting cost money to do you don't just switch the name and it works on the Switch. It just like do you put Ford car parts into a Honda car no. Just because they look similar what lies underneath does not. If it was so easy then from the start they just change then xbox to Switch and away we go. People make it sounds so easy but don't notice how hard it is or how much money it takes to port.

@Ralizah There's a perception difference though. PC is going to be seen as the "superior" version to the audience. It has the best hardware, best graphics, mod support for some games etc. So PC gamers aren't going to complain about more expensive for the late release of the "best" version.

The heavy visual downgrades of a Switch version will instantly be seen as paying more to get the worse version. Particularly the sizable part of the western audience that couldn't care less about portability and uses it only as a home console. $60 for pretty, $30 for stripped down.....not a hard choice. If Nintendo Overdrive instead of Nintendo Switch was the current Nintendo console and it ran circles around X1X, people would happily buy that $60 late version. Remember, ESA surveys prove annually: Graphics = quality in gaming.

"I imagine there are plenty of current and future Switch owners who don't own a PS4 and appreciate these ports. There are also a substantial number of us who prefer fully portable versions of our games."

We're a niche, going by the numbers. We like our nice, but there's not enough of us to move the numbers. Look at those Ubisoft sales numbers back in June.

I just checked the PS Store and its $60 on there as well... What 'switch tax'?