Support NeoGAF

[Spyder_Monkey]

So... Now Nintendo is evil because they are not controlling the price of third party games??? And according to some people this is bad for their relation with the third party publishers?? Lol.... Really.. c'mon guys, you can do better than this...BTW, If they do that, i already can see a thread in Gaf full of Nintendo is doomed comments. If you dont want to support this practice, dont buy the game.. Simple. I am pretty sure that majority publishers are not going to do this.

Really though it's a Catch-22. People don't buy games on Switch because it's more expensive and developers stop making games for it or Nintendo regulates prices and risks ruining developer relationships if the profit margins on games are now lower.

 

[cw_sasuke]

Is that your first console launch ? Titles being higher priced during the launch period is nothing Nintendo exclusive - you also had to pay more in general for PS4/One titles when they were new compared to established systems.

Its a simple question of limited choice and demand.

 

[TheSpoiler]

Is that your first console launch ? Titles being higher priced during the launch period is nothing Nintendo exclusive - you also had to pay more in general for PS4/One titles when they were new compared to established systems.

Its a simple question of limited choice and demand.

Really? Maybe for people outside the US, but all games were retailing at $59.99, which was the standard of the PS3/Xbox 360 era.

 

[StarStabbedMoon]

It appears that preventing their customers from getting screwed over is not a priority for Nintendo.

Don't they run the risk of losing what little support they have among third-parties if they were to pull the rug out from these publisher-friendly policies that, yes, take advantage of consumers?

Make up your mind people. Don't be surprised when you expect Nintendo to do everything they can to court publishers, only to find Nintendo bending over backwards to accommodate them. This is what happens when you give third-parties what they want, it comes at the expense of both the platform and consumers. We asked for this.

 

[LordOcidax]

Really though it's a Catch-22. People don't buy games on Switch because it's more expensive and developers stop making games for it or Nintendo regulates prices and risks ruining developer relationships if the profit margins on games are now lower.

Publishers knows that... Is a new console with a really small catalog of games, lots of people are going to grab anything that comes out, so is good business for them. After a few weeks they are going to reduce the price. Also Maybe they are releasing some games on the console because they can charge those extra $10 at launch.

 

[LewieP]

Don't they run the risk of losing what little support they have among third-parties if they were to pull the rug out from these publisher-friendly policies that, yes, take advantage of consumers?

Make up your mind people. Don't be surprised when you expect Nintendo to do everything they can to court publishers, only to find Nintendo bending over backwards to accommodate them. This is what happens when you give third-parties what they want, it comes at the expense of both the platform and consumers. We asked for this.

I never asked for this. I'm not sure why your attributing things said by other people to me.

There are games that have price parity across platforms including Switch, and would presumably have no problem complying with a policy requiring this. It's not an all or nothing scenario.

 

[EDarkness]

I never asked for this. I'm not sure why your attributing things said by other people to me.

There are games that have price parity across platforms including Switch, and would presumably have no problem complying with a policy requiring this. It's not an all or nothing scenario.

So complain to the publisher about this. Direct your anger at them because they can ultimately do something about it.

 

[LewieP]

So complain to the publisher about this. Direct your anger at them because they can ultimately do something about it.

Nintendo could do something about it, by adopting policies to protect their customers from publishers seeking to charge more on Nintendo platforms.

 

[cw_sasuke]

Really? Maybe for people outside the US, but all games were retailing at $59.99, which was the standard of the PS3/Xbox 360 era.

Not true at all - stuff like the Telltale games were more expensive on PS4/One.... most of the games listed in the OP arent your standard full price games either - but titles that are cheaper to begin with.

 

[StarStabbedMoon]

I never asked for this. I'm not sure why your attributing things said by other people to me.

There are games that have price parity across platforms including Switch, and would presumably have no problem complying with a policy requiring this. It's not an all or nothing scenario.

I do agree with you and was trying to speak generally. It's just very frustrating when the majority of the gaming community wants Nintendo to bow to the whims of any publisher they can find and it inevitably leads to bad policies like this.

 

[EDarkness]

Nintendo could do something about it, by adopting policies to protect their customers from publishers seeking to charge more on Nintendo platforms.

They could, but it goes against their philosophy of being hands off and letting companies sink or swim by their own actions. Hell, they might even be encouraging companies to price their games accordingly behind the scenes (they've never brought up price with me, but I don't know how they deal with others), but at the end of the day they have no say in this. You can bet, the moment they step in there will be a shitstorm from companies and even players about how they're being too restrictive. Better to let the market sort it out. If the consumers don't want to pay that price, then the publisher can lower the price. If you don't like that, then complain to the publisher about it.

 

[guybrushfreeman]

There really does seem to be a lot of 'the graphics are poor' = 'no they aren't, it's the most powerful handheld ever!' But then, 'why is everything so expensive?' = 'Because it's a home console duh!!!'

Over time the market will dictate what forms of games are successful on the Switch but I do think publishers are going to have trouble if they want to have it both ways. If this really is a portable for people I don't think charging home console prices are going to cut it. The 3DS and Vita audience just aren't going to be paying that much

 

[Dreamwriter]

Keep in mind, Nintendo doesn't see themselves as competing with other platforms. So why would Nintendo care if a game costs more on Switch than on PS4? Nobody's going to not buy a Switch at all just because the game they want is $10 pricier than on another console, they aren't buying a Switch because it's a cheap budget option.

 

[LordOcidax]

They could, but it goes against their philosophy of being hands off and letting companies sink or swim by their own actions. Hell, they might even be encouraging companies to price their games accordingly, but at the end of the day they have no say in this. You can bet, the moment they step in there will be a shitstorm from companies and even players about how they're being too restrictive. Better to let the market sort it out. If the consumers don't want to pay that price, then the publisher can lower the price. If you don't like that, then complain to the publisher about it.

Exactly. Also i think this is going to be a problem only a for a few months.

 

[dtm808]

I mean if nobody buys those game devs will know it dosnt work and lower the price.

 

[Joe T.]

This looks like the N64 pricing situation all over again to me, except back then we were all well aware of the price disparity between cartridges and CDs. Do we have any idea what the third party pricing structure is for the various Switch card sizes yet? It'll be interesting to see the MSRP of 32GB Switch games from third parties once they hit the US market.

 

[EDarkness]

I mean if nobody buys those game devs will know it dosnt work and lower the price.

More than that, if games that have parity sell better than ones that don't, they'll change their pricing.

 

[Cuburt]

Same thing happened multiple times on the Wii U so you can't just chalk it up to the added cost of cartridges, plus the 3DS and DS had carts and if there were any mutliplatform games, we didn't see the priced hiked up for those games.

If this was just about smaller margins on cartridges, everyone would only release games on digital to keep prices down, but they don't and even if they did, the savings for digital hardly get passed on to the consumer, definitely not on any consoles.

If Publishers want the Switch platform to be fruitful, unlike the Wii U, and be a place they can actually sell games, they need to cut that shit out and stop screwing over Switch owners unless they don't want to sell their games.

The 3DS and DS prices tell me this shouldn't be another N64 situation, but somehow it's still looking like it could be.

 

[Copenap]

I do think this will change in the future. It's just publishers taking advantage of the games drought on the Switch so thwy know they can charge more as people are desparate to play something (after Zelda).

It's the samw for Sony and MS but just not as obvious as they are the first in a new generation so there is no direct comparison and nobody complains when a game is cheaper on older platforms.

 

[Herb Alpert]

Portable tax.

Ho come on what a bullshit.

There is no reason a game on switch should be more expensive than anywhere else.

They are trying, and if consumers buy, they will set this practice as standard.

Once again, third parties consider that nintendo platform owners live in a vacuum.

 

[axisofweevils]

I refuse to buy any multiplat that's more expensive on Switch. I own multiple consoles. Pulling that BS shows total contempt for your customers and risks poisoning the well. As a result, they won't get a sale from me anywhere.

 

[Makonero]

I'll never understand this shit. no rational group of people will gladly pay ten dollars more for a third party game they can get elsewhere. Especially when their competition is Nintendo games, something third parties always moan and complain about because it's too hard competing with Nintendo. Stop shooting yourself in the foot, and maybe you'll actually get some success.

 

[koss424]

It's only happening because Nintendo allows it.

Sony and Microsoft have policies in place to prevent developers and publishers from charging more for identical games on similar platforms, in order to prevent their customers from getting screwed over.

It appears that preventing their customers from getting screwed over is not a priority for Nintendo.

I still think it's outrageous that Nintendo are letting Binding of Isaac force you to buy all the DLC, whereas it's $15 standalone on all other platforms it's released for.

really? they released a physical copy. why not put all the content on the purchase?

 

[zackmorris]

Portable tax.

Vita tho

 

[Cuburt]

There really does seem to be a lot of 'the graphics are poor' = 'no they aren't, it's the most powerful handheld ever!' But then, 'why is everything so expensive?' = 'Because it's a home console duh!!!'

Over time the market will dictate what forms of games are successful on the Switch but I do think publishers are going to have trouble if they want to have it both ways. If this really is a portable for people I don't think charging home console prices are going to cut it. The 3DS and Vita audience just aren't going to be paying that much

It's because it's not a console or a portable, it's a hybrid. That's why people on GAF are pulling out their hair trying to stick it neatly in a box.

BotW is a console game through and through. It was started on the Wii U and it runs better on the Switch than on that platform, in a higher resolution to boot. It's a console game and it's charged at a console price. This is something everyone understands and had no problem paying for, in fact, BotW ended up being a crucial game for the launch of the system because there is no confusion about what the system is and what it's capabilities are (in a general sense), especially with how it's a massive open world game.

It's debatable if any handheld has ever had a AAA game since it's typically categorized by team size, budget, and development time, but in the case of BotW Nintendo put one of their biggest games on the platform. Not a spin-off, not a watered down port, not just the franchise in a tailor-made game, it's the exact same game as on the Wii U.

Nintendo has already made their case why this isn't "just a handheld" with one game since the approach is already different from any games ever developed for handhelds. If tablets can get "console" games and Nvidia already proved this stuff with the Shield TV, why do people act like handhelds and consoles exist in bubble where tablet gaming was never a thing?

 

[TLZ]

It's 2 versions in 1 it's an incredible deal

Not this silly excuse again. Might as well make it $120 then eh?

 

[guybrushfreeman]

It's because it's not a console or a portable, it's a hybrid. That's why people on GAF are pulling out their hair trying to stick it neatly in a box.

BotW is a console game through and through. It was started on the Wii U and it runs better on the Switch than on that platform, in a higher resolution to boot. It's a console game and it's charged at a console price. This is something everyone understands and had no problem paying for, in fact, BotW ended up being a crucial game for the launch of the system because there is no confusion about what the system is and what it's capabilities are (in a general sense), especially with how it's a massive open world game.

It's debatable if any handheld has ever had a AAA game since it's typically categorized by team size, budget, and development time, but in the case of BotW Nintendo put one of their biggest games on the platform. Not a spin-off, not a watered down port, not just the franchise in a tailor-made game, it's the exact same game as on the Wii U.

Nintendo has already made their case why this isn't "just a handheld" with one game since the approach is already different from any games ever developed for handhelds. If tablets can get "console" games and Nvidia already proved this stuff with the Shield TV, why do people act like handhelds and consoles exist in bubble where tablet gaming was never a thing?

The question is how much is that worth to the public though? Switch costs far more than any successful handheld ever has with more expensive games. In Australia it's also the most expensive home console on the market as well. The question is does the public expect cheaper titles with handheld style budgets (DS/3DS/Vita style) or are they willing to pay a premium price for lower home console performance but some portability? Publishers will need to figure out what it is consumers are looking for here but I'm not sure consumers themselves really know either right now.

I find the price aspect of the Switch very interesting, publishers want home console pricing but it seems to be at odds with consumers expectations for the platform. However traditionally handhelds haven't had games with budgets this size and it's not clear the market wants to pay for them

 

[LewieP]

really? they released a physical copy. why not put all the content on the purchase?

Not sure where you got that idea.

I am suggesting they should make it available as a $15 download without the DLC. Like it is on every other platform.

I never said they shouldn't also do a $40 version with extras.

 

[Darkspineslayer]

Portable tax.

I'd buy it if this was a PS4/Vita cross buy situation. This is literally one version of the game. Price gouging plain and simple.

 

[SalvaPot]

Its a BS tax.


No. Its this:





Yup, this is gonna to into an excuse, justification. And its BS.



Exactly.

I hope to god MS and Sony dont start charging extra for remote play and Play Anywhere,
or Sony charging even extra for PS Now especially since its getting PS4 games added to it. I mean doesnt MS offer PC versions of some games free as like a bundle? I might have that backwards but still the point stands...

At the same time.....yall that want the Switch to be a success might have to support this. I mean ppl did support paying for online last gen and this gen....

Me? It was gonna be an exclusive machine anyway. Pretty much like the XBO is. (except for 360 B/C. Such a good feature they added after the fact)

And like stated earlier...the Switch tax started with Rime...

Remote Play is nowhere near the convinience of Switch.

Angry Birds sold for $35 on 3DS. Its weird and I am not saying its ok, but Minecraft is the type of game that sells at any price to the main audience: children who have their parents to buy it for them.

Portability and console quality will maje it sell, probably.

 

[KtSlime]

It's only happening because Nintendo allows it.

Sony and Microsoft have policies in place to prevent developers and publishers from charging more for identical games on similar platforms, in order to prevent their customers from getting screwed over.

It appears that preventing their customers from getting screwed over is not a priority for Nintendo.

I still think it's outrageous that Nintendo are letting Binding of Isaac force you to buy all the DLC, whereas it's $15 standalone on all other platforms it's released for.

Don't the developers who set the prices bare any responsibility for screwing over their fans? Sure Nintendo allows it, but Nintendo isn't their mom.

 

[Joey Ravn]

I can play remote play on Vita for free...

Yeah, sure. So? I can remote play with my phone as well. What's your point?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. The Switch renders the games natively. Unless you're implying that the Vita comes with a free PS4, which is the thing that actually outputs the game.

 

[Madao]

It's lose-lose.

Not buying Switch games just ensures no third party support.

if the consumer loses either way, the cheaper option is the better one, which is the one i suggested.

 

[Lucifon]

New console tax has been a thing in the UK since I can remember. It was only recently I realised elsewhere didn't seem to get this.

 

[Magwik]

Imagine how much trouble they went through to get the Telltale engine running on the Switch. I can't imagine porting that trash engine over was fun.

Spoiler

In reality the Switch is a new platform and games aren't going to market themselves below $40 like that.

 

[Resistance100]

Nintendo could do something about it, by adopting policies to protect their customers from publishers seeking to charge more on Nintendo platforms.

They couldn't do that it in the EU.

 

[Cuburt]

The question is how much is that worth to the public though? Switch costs far more than any successful handheld ever has with more expensive games. In Australia it's also the most expensive home console on the market as well. The question is does the public expect cheaper titles with handheld style budgets (DS/3DS/Vita style) or are they willing to pay a premium price for lower home console performance but some portability? Publishers will need to figure out what it is consumers are looking for here but I'm not sure consumers themselves really know either right now.

I find the price aspect of the Switch very interesting, publishers want home console pricing but it seems to be at odds with consumers expectations for the platform. However traditionally handhelds haven't had games with budgets this size and it's not clear the market wants to pay for them

Well, like you said, we will see what the market responds to ultimately, but like I said, Nintendo already made a great case for AAA console games being sold at the expected price. We haven't seen handhelds with games that have the budgets and size of something like BotW, but we also haven't had a handheld that seamlessly plays the exact same game on the TV all in one device. The fact you can do that and play it only like a console if you want also makes it a console, which is why calling it a hybrid is the best description, even if people want it to be one or the other. BotW says it can be both at the same time.

Also, Nintendo themselves have become more flexible with their pricing so there really isn't the same "handheld pricing" and "console pricing" dichotomy like there used to be, both in the digital and retail space. We even saw it at the launch of the Switch in Nintendo's own first party titles: BotW - $60, 1 2 Switch $50, Snipperclips $20. Then again, maybe this isn't a case of handheld pricing vs console pricing, but rather digital vs retail pricing and publishers trying to justify a retail product by listing at a certain pricepoint.

 

[whyreggielie]

I bought minecraft for 30 on Wii U, wouldn't 40 make sense for the added story mode? Not defending price gauging practices like Rime but I'm not familiar with how minecraft should be priced I guess.

EDIT: minecraft regular version for Wii U is 30, what's wrong with this price point?

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/minecra...ffcode=pg129336&ksdevice=m&lsft=ref:212,loc:2

 

[LordKano]

Not true at all - stuff like the Telltale games were more expensive on PS4/One.... most of the games listed in the OP arent your standard full price games either - but titles that are cheaper to begin with.

This. It's the first console launch for a lot of people, but that kind of overpricing is common. It won't last long.

 

[Panajev2001a]

You do realize that discs are a huge no-no for systems meant to be taken on the go, right? The PSP is proof of that.

I had plenty of fun with the PSP... so... disagree on that, but Incan see why carts would work better for Switch yes... they do have a drawback and we are seeing it now (people should have come in with the right expectations).

 

[TyMiles2012]

I can play remote play on Vita for free...

False. You have to buy the Vita.

 

[LewieP]

They couldn't do that it in the EU.

You are incorrect. Sony and Microsoft do this in Europe.

 

[Panajev2001a]

So... Now Nintendo is evil because they are not controlling the price of third party games??? And according to some people this is bad for their relation with the third party publishers?? Lol.... Really.. c'mon guys, you can do better than this...BTW, If they do that, i already can see a thread in Gaf full of Nintendo is doomed comments. If you dont want to support this practice, dont buy the game.. Simple. I am pretty sure that majority publishers are not going to do this.

This is not something that says Nintendo is evil, it just brings things back to reality. When people that disliked the idea of carts and the price/inventory risk/etc... issues inherent with carts compared to cheap optical discs (yes, I am very aware of Switch's form factor and Incan understand why Nintendo went with cartridges), they were met with Nintendo fans countering how this was a non issues as Nintendo could save so much in shipping costs (the game boxes are drawling oversized) and more and they could pass the savings down to publishers (which clearly is not happening, is it?).
People knew retailers would not like eShop games priced much lower than physical retail ones which meant that everyone is paying for risk and cost inherent in carts manufacturing and distribution.

 

[Hasney]

Honestly hoping that smaller games don't get physical releases. It's a bummer, but if it makes a game I want more expensive than elsewhere, then so be it.

 

[hemo memo]

Handheld + Tabletop + Handheld.. That's like 3 different experiences. you're paying like 13.3$ that's reaaly cheap.

Thank you Nintendo.

 

[ramparter]

Portable tax.

I'm not accepting this tax. I accepted the 70€ price of Zelda because it's a game way better than most, not because I can play it on both portable and TV.

I'm sorry if people are finding this ok. I'll keep buying second hand I guess as I did on Wii U.

 

[Sadist]

Launch tax. In a year this will be corrected.

 

[baconcow]

Binding of Isaac: Afterbirth + came out, last week, so it would have started with that, not Minecraft Story Mode. On another note, I think Afterbirth + is worth the price. No one, serious about BoI, plays vanilla Rebirth without at least the Afterbirth mod (or the Antibirth mod, which is currently only on PC, but may become integrated into AB+).

 

[Lagamorph]

Portable tax.

If the Switch was truly viable as a portable that might be a reasonable explanation. Bulkiness, awkwardness in carrying it around and game gear levels of battery life say otherwise though.

 

[shiftplusone]

I think Puyo Puyo Tetris will be the first one in April, right? $40 physical on Switch, $30 physical on PS4.

There is no physical ps4 version for the English release