Support NeoGAF

[Elephant]

It's a case of Nintendo not paying attention to the 3rd party market and getting by on their exclusives. That works to a certain extent, because everyone loves Nintendo games for the most part.

But they're ignoring a big part of their potential audience. COD, Destiny, Fifa, NBA2k, Battlefield, Overwatch etc. Games that sell millions & millions of copies, that are the true system sellers for PS4 & Xbox. They either don't come out on Nintendo consoles or they get a crappy stripped down version of it.

I don't know whether its arrogance that stops them from even trying to be competitive with 3rd parties, overpricing them or just not offering them.

Nintendo just piss me off as a company, because they're earning millions when they should be earning billions.

 

[Goodlife]

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.

Yeah.... No

 

[baconcow]

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.

The Switch is fine as a portable, depending on your definition of portable. When I take my 3DS or Vita travelling with me, I end up having to take the charger and some other accessories with it in my backpack. It isn't as good as just slipping a system in my pocket like a smartphone, but it still allows me to bring a handheld system where I go.

 

[LordKano]

There is no physical ps4 version for the English release

There is a physical PS4 version. What's missing is the digital version, because of Ubisoft's rights.

 

[Shiggy]

There is no physical ps4 version for the English release

There is.

 

[Haunted]

With regards to the Switch, Nintendo has had a number of patterns in their behaviour for a very long time. One of them is rocky handling of third party relationships. Maybe they'll do better this time, but it's possible they won't. And so if you are buying a Switch and planning to get mad when it doesn't get a game, gets a worse version of a game, gets a game late, or the game costs more, maybe it's time to realize that you can save yourself a bit of misery by adjusting your expectations and responses now.

How will they ever change if no one complains.

That said, the strongest message you can send to a company is not purchasing the product in question when you're not happy with it which people did with the WiiU and its games, but it doesn't look like the message came across.


It's fairly predictable what's going to happen. People will not be ready to pay a premium tax, sales will suffer, companies will assign blame and react accordingly.

Doesn't take a Nostradamus to figure this one out.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

I see two major factors:

1) Switch cartridges are more expensive than other consoles (possibly even than comparable cart options, depending on what Nintendo's manufacturing setup, minimum guarantees, etc. are) and companies pass along the cost to consumers -- and no companies are not going to charge $2.44 more or whatever, they're going to round up to the next logical pricepoint. It's also possible Nintendo's revenue share stuff actually penalizes stuff that's budget priced, which might incentivize people to go up a whole price class instead of just $5.

2) Launch console. If you're a development, being at a console at launch involves a very different risk profile. On the one hand, nothing is on shelves and you have no competition, so you will probably attach pretty well and the chance of being lost in the shuffle is lower. On the other hand, the upside is also far lower, because your game that appeals to 5% of the population is now 5% of a low number instead of 5% of a high number. If you look at it as giving up upside in exchange for protection against downside risk, then one logical behaviour might be to assume that customers are somewhat less price sensitive and maximize your revenue given a constraint on units. Even outside the video game arena, most businesses can either be in a profit-per-unit business (margin) or a sell-many-units business (volume), and if you can't do volume, you have to do margin.

Separately, I expect Minecraft is substantially underpriced. It'd be selling tens of millions of units across platforms at $60/game, but because of its humble origins, it has historically been much cheaper. I think in general over time you would expect the game's price to float up for that reason.

But like most OMG IMPORTANT CONSUMER RIGHTS ISSUES, you can spend your time yelling about how UNETHICAL and BIAS this is, or you can basically get on with your day. If you get on with your day, you have a choice between purchasing the product anyway or choosing not to purchase the product. In the case of multiplatform stuff, it's cheaper elsewhere, and if it's just the game you're after, you could buy it elsewhere. Not to say that you can't complain or anything, but I think ultimately your goal should be to be happy with your purchases and happy with your life, and the best route to achieving that is probably not letting these kinds of things paralyze you. With regards to the Switch, Nintendo has had a number of patterns in their behaviour for a very long time. One of them is rocky handling of third party relationships. Maybe they'll do better this time, but it's possible they won't. And so if you are buying a Switch and planning to get mad when it doesn't get a game, gets a worse version of a game, gets a game late, or the game costs more, maybe it's time to realize that you can save yourself a bit of misery by adjusting your expectations and responses now.

So then why don't you just lock the thread? Apparently this just comes down to it not being a big deal for you so it isn't for anyone and that it never works so we should put on our big boy pants and worry about something that matters rather than wasting our time on this and getting upset. It doesn't make it ok just because Nintendo has handled things that aren't even this poorly in previous generations.

 

[SalvaPot]

So then why don't you just lock the thread? Apparently this just comes down to it not being a big deal for you so it isn't for anyone and that it never works so we should put on our big boy pants and worry about something that matters rather than wasting our time on this and getting upset. It doesn't make it ok just because Nintendo has handled things that aren't even this poorly in previous generations.

Because its a valid discussion, just locking it because you doesn't agree its pretty much the opposite of a forum.

 

[Principate]

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

Yeah this is standard practice for a lot of third parties. I'm more surprised people are shocked at this. I guess better looking version was an easier sell than portable and tv output.

 

[Mr-Joker]

The "Switch Tax" is a bit annoying but I am of the mind set of not buying them day one and wait till they get a price drop.

It's what I have been doing for non-Nintendo's titles for a while.

Furthermore this "Switch Tax" reminds me of the time when Capcom tried to charge £10 more for Resident Evil Revelations which only did they back down on but the game ended up getting a price drop to the point that it can be brought for dirt cheap.

This will be no different.

Also the whole "portable Tax" argument is silly as it's one game not two version combined and the the fact that portable games are usually cheaper than their console counterpart.

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

That's like saying "I can play Gameboy games on the big screen for free via the Gameboy Player."

Your logic fails as the Vita does not come included with the PS4, thereby invaliding your argument.

The point is....Sony didnt charge extra for that feature. A feature where you could play your PS4 on the go. Seeing them launching PS Now I'm kinda surprised they didnt charge for it.

What was Nintendo's answer? Sell damn near the same game on home and handheld with Wii U/3DS. Or in some cases the same game. Now for 3DS!!!

The 3DS gets basically remasters of some older games. Were they playable on the Wii U? (another question I'm legit asking)

Now compare that to playing PS4 remasters with remote play...

Sony has been doing remote play since the PSP days.....

Have you actually see the 3DS versions? They are scaled down compared to the Wii U version and in some cases have different features.

You're blaming Nintendo for the 3DS not being powerful enough to remote play Wii U games.

Furthermore the whole remote play comparison argument is moot as Nintendo doesn't charge customers for taking the Switch in and out of the dock, thus once the customers buy the Switch they are free to switch between play style on the fly.

Whereas with Sony you need to buy another hardware just to do that, which cost more than they are charging for a switch game with the added new "console tax".

Nintendo needs to do something about this. This is how third party support dies.

Nintendo is probably is a catch 22 situation is they can't be heavy handed with publishers, especially third-party but at the same time they can't annoy customers with the higher price point.

Personally I expect the "Switch tax" to be gone by the end of the year once the system starts to have more games and the install base becomes bigger.

It's a case of Nintendo not paying attention to the 3rd party market and getting by on their exclusives. That works to a certain extent, because everyone loves Nintendo games for the most part.

But they're ignoring a big part of their potential audience. COD, Destiny, Fifa, NBA2k, Battlefield, Overwatch etc. Games that sell millions & millions of copies, that are the true system sellers for PS4 & Xbox. They either don't come out on Nintendo consoles or they get a crappy stripped down version of it.

I don't know whether its arrogance that stops them from even trying to be competitive with 3rd parties, overpricing them or just not offering them.

Okay but what does this has anything to do with the topic in hand when it's Microsoft that's charging extra and not Nintendo?

Nintendo just piss me off as a company, because they're earning millions when they should be earning billions.

Unless you have stock in Nintendo, why do you care?

 

[cw_sasuke]

Yeah this is standard practice for a lot of third parties. I'm more surprised people are shocked at this. I guess better looking version was an easier sell than portable and tv output.

Multiplattform games = ports
Remasters = Rom dumps
Higher software prices during console launch period = Nintendo Tax

The Switch difference.

 

[Elephant]

Unless you have stock in Nintendo, why do you care?

In the context of what I put before it, a lot. I'd be getting a competitive Nintendo that offers more than it's stellar exclusives. That can only benefit the consumer... me.

 

[sixteen-bit]

Portable tax.

I'm used to portable games being cheaper than console games

 

[Hero]

Nintendo gave publishers the freedom to price games what they want so when a publisher prices their games higher than their other console versions, it's Nintendo's fault and not the publisher? What?

 

[Minsc]

Nintendo gave publishers the freedom to price games what they want so when a publisher prices their games higher than their other console versions, it's Nintendo's fault and not the publisher? What?

I guess if every other platform forces price parity and what not, and Nintendo says, "sure, sell your game to our customers at a higher price and we'll both take a cut of the profit from these desperate customers", it sorta is their fault, partly. Sony/MS/etc aren't letting them put their game up for a higher price... so why does Nintendo?

 

[Blam]

This is just bad practice. I don't buy a game from developers who charge more for a easy port to another platform.

 

[Hero]

I guess if every other platform forces price parity and what not, and Nintendo says, "sure, sell your game to our customers at a higher price and we'll both take a cut of the profit from these desperate customers", it sorta is their fault, partly. Sony/MS/etc aren't letting them put their game up for a higher price... so why does Nintendo?

I mean, just for clarification, I'm not saying it's a good business practice and I will never buy a game that costs more on one platform for no other reason rather than greed. It just seems like the majority of the posts in this thread are using it as system/company war drivel. Both Nintendo and the publisher are doing customers wrong but only one is setting the price and the other is giving the freedom for it to happen in the first place.

 

[tolkir]

I guess if every other platform forces price parity and what not, and Nintendo says, "sure, sell your game to our customers at a higher price and we'll both take a cut of the profit from these desperate customers", it sorta is their fault, partly. Sony/MS/etc aren't letting them put their game up for a higher price... so why does Nintendo?

Probably because Nintendo paid a fine of $147 million for price fixing and they are afraid that it happens again.

And why not, to get more third party. Maybe they prefer an expensive third party to not third party at all.

 

[DrDomVonDoom]

I know it wasn't a port or a multiplatform but I definitely let Konami know what I thought of their $50 Bomberman game, trying to tell me Bomberman is worth 10 bucks less than Zelda? Naw, not even close. Its a $20 game at best, my problem is Nintendo is in this delicate situation where they can't give the ol Apple branded iron fist in a silk glove, without scaring off the third parties.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

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.

They're likely avoiding another price fixing scandal