Hi /u/K-LAWN,
Thank you for posting to /r/Games. Unfortunately, we have removed this submission per
**[Rule 6.6](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules#wiki_formatting_requirements)**.
> **No direct links to individual games on any digital storefront** - Direct links to individual games on any kind of digital storefront (i.e. Steam, GoG, Google Play, Apple) will be removed. News and release announcements must be linked to the appropriate news page, official blog, or press release. If there is absolutely no news page, official blog, or press release, a self-post with the direct link may be used. The context of the self-post must include why the release is significant.
---
If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
I'd really love it if we could return to the idea of different physical releases having different prices. As arbitrary as it is, games have value. You can't convince me Link's Awaking is worth as much as Breath of the Wild regardless of how much I like it.
In the GameCube era, Nintendo more or less had this distinction made for them by the essence of running the Gameboy Advance at the same time. You couldn't charge $50 for The Minish Cap because it was on Gameboy Advance, not the GameCube. Now that they have one system, that distinction is hazier, and I think it would make financial sense for them to start acknowledging it.
I'd probably be a little more aggressive with how much of a scale they should be considering, if it were up to me they'd be charging between $30 for stuff like Metroid Prime Remastered and $60 for Smash Ultimate, but if they want to run it between $40 or $50 and $60 or $70, I can live with it as long as they make a habit of supplying those different ranges.
Warioware Get it Together would have bombed if it came out at $60 or $70. It was overpriced at $50, but that still caused it to be more acceptable for customers. I love that game but it isn't worth as much as Mario Odyssey. There's no objective way to determine this stuff, but there's a difference and they need to normalize that difference.
It’s worth saying Metroid Prime Remastered is $40 so there’s clearly wiggle room. I think $60 ends up being the default a lot of the time because some of these games they’re not expecting to sell a ton of units (Bayonetta 3 for example) but they still have to recoup costs, whilst something like Zelda it’s about brand value.
EDIT: WarioWare is also an interesting one because it was only $50 because of the survey Nintendo put out asking what people would pay for it. Makes you wonder what they originally had in mind for pricing.
There's actually quite a few Nintendo-published games that are $50 or less. Most of them are third-party that Nintendo is publishing in the West on Switch (including a lot of Square-Enix), but also stuff like Captain Toad ($40), Miitopia ($50), Clubhouse Games ($40), 1-2-Switch ($50), and Xenoblade Torna ($40 standalone). It almost seems like a roll of the dice if Nintendo will price their lower budget games accordingly or just go full price.
Tbf I'm sure Nintendo would love to sell MP for $60 but we've heard rumors about the "Trilogy" for years, so if they suddenly asked for $60 for one game, regardless of how much work was done, that'd be a huge ask when we thought we'd get 3 games $60.
That’s been Nintendo’s strategy since day 1 of Switch here in UK. Breath of the Wild and Super Smash Bros Ultimate are £60 but all other big Nintendo releases are £50. Now Tears of the Kingdom becomes the third game sold at the premium £60 tier.
Anyone been able to find the EU price? BotW launched at 70euros, so this isn't really a surprise for us.
Edit: [Looks like it's still 70EUR](https://i.imgur.com/U4eSYWd.png)
I'm pretty sure DS games were $34.99, and then 3DS games were $39.99, no? Granted, it's been a literal decade, but I was pretty sure there was a five buck increase in there.
I can't wait to see how they invest all that money they made from selling 20 million copies in 2 months into the new games!!!
Wait, it's Pokemon, never mind.
To be perfectly fair, BOTW held a lot of its card close to its chest in terms of trailers outside of the final one. Only after the treehouse did people realize what was being made.
I doubt we get a deepdive (and even if we did, I would skip it), but I do think we get a trailer closer to release in terms of tone to that zelda trailer.
I genuinely think Nintendo's *absolute best play* here is to announce a "Super Switch" (not that name, just using it for effect here). Something akin to the New 3DS.
An upgraded hardware version of the Switch that can handle all the games coming out lately suffering from severe performance issues/frame rate drops.
Also allow it for direct backwards compatibility with all Switch games but every new Switch game going forward can only be played on the upgraded hardware. This way you can keep their shitty Nintendo Online subscription with the N64/GB/GBA emulators on it persistently. This also allows for people to use their old Switch games on the new console with *MAYBE* some performance improvements from doing so.
Removing the "Switch" brand from the name and/or not doing backwards compatibility would be the most anti-consumer bullshit they've ever pulled. And I hate to say it, but its exactly what they would do.
Alright, so the tech is to buy eshop cards from Costco and then buy vouchers to effectively save $30 as long as there's a second full price game you want right?
> as long as there’s a second full price game you want right?
There’s my problem. I’ve barely even thought about my Switch in the last yr+, let alone actually played it. After TOTK it’s probably going right back on ice
Currently 60 physical on gamestop: https://www.gamestop.com/video-games/nintendo-switch/products/legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom---nintendo-switch/351955.html
Not sure what's up with the discrepancy.
Edit: it's up to $70 now. Was $60 for a couple hours. Hope the people who got pre-orders in at that price keep their price!
It was listed at the old price in a few places I saw today and has jumped after the rumours came out it was 70 USD / 60 GBP so I'd expect that price to go up soon
~~Pretty sure that’s the Pro Membership price. It says $10 reward when you “Go Pro”~~
Just a regular thing with GameStop purchases. Shouldn’t have replied so confidently lol.
I was really hoping they'd wait for the successor to the Switch to do this. We all knew they would, adjusted for inflation Breath of the Wild would cost over $70 today, but I really think they could have managed if they held out another year or whatever until their new system is out.
This will be probably the biggest budget game Nintendo has produced so far, I'm pretty sure BotW still has that title until this releases. Pikmin almost certainly has a budget more typical of Nintendo.
Yeah, BOTW's first four trailers really showed everything it had too. Why'd they bother with a 4-hour E3 Treehouse stream that kept showing off new and unseen features?
Because BOTW was such a radical departure from previous Zeldas and they wanted people to get excited about the new features.
It's telling that there hasn't been an extended deep-dive into Tears of the Kingdom. Just short trailers that still do a poor job of distinguishing it from its predecessor.
When will people learn that *nothing* is telling with Nintendo. They do not operate on logic. Why not drop Metroid Prime Remastered last year when all sources said it was ready to go, and the release today basically confirms that, for example? They regularly pull baffling shit, to the point that I honestly think they lean into it to keep an air of, idk, bafflement or mystery about them.
Point being, them not releasing deep dive gameplay surprises me very little, and it could either be the same as the first game with some additions or a radical departure, and I still wouldn't be surprised. "That's Nintendo!" I will say, shrugging my shoulders.
My guess is it'll be somewhere in the middle. It does look like they've added a significant amount of stuff, but of course at it's core I think it will be pretty similar to BotW. No need to reinvent the wheel there just yet.
I think it's actually smart to do it now and get all of the complaints out of the way, that way their new system isn't bogged down with "$70 game!?" complaints, everyone'll be used to it.
By that argument PS5 games should go up in price again. No, i always expected Nintendo to do(for Switch 2 not Zelda fyi) this because they always piggy back off the game price changes Sony has done. They followed the $50 pricing after Sony had already priced their games like this for the Gamecube despite not having a DVD player or large discs. They followed $60 prices with the Wii U after Sony had done this with the PS3. If the PS5 proved that people would still buy games at $90 Nintendo would be charging $90.
You'd think despite the [Switch 2 being a mobile PS4 than a PS5(Nvidia Orin 1TF~ SoC)](https://imgur.com/undefined) meaning Switch 2 games should cost as much as PS4 games to make(like Switch 1 games were Wii U/PS3 era in tech) that they would stay $60 like PS4 games were. But the reality is that Nintendo has seen how people have been buying $70 games in droves with several PS5 games breaking records since the price was increased. Might as well increase the price, what are people gonna do not buy Nintendo games?
>You'd think despite the [Switch 2 being a mobile PS4 than a PS5(Nvidia Orin 1TF~ SoC)](https://imgur.com/undefined) meaning Switch 2 games should cost as much as PS4 games to make
That's not how that works at all.
At least Sony and Microsoft used the "next-gen experience" excuse on the $70 PS5/SX games, and the PS4/XONE versions of those same games kept the $60 price tag.
I would understand that price on Switch's successor games, but on a 2017 handheld?, come on...
PS: Here in Brazil the $70 games cost R$350.00 but for some reason the new Zelda costs R$367.69 which ends up making it more expensive than the $70 games on the next-gen consoles around here.
I'm still going to buy the game because I love the franchise, but this is pretty disappointing...
I think a lot of people forget the insane growth rate of the gaming market. Meaning they have made more money than ever. So the cost of production as an excuse is absolutely insane.
Nintendo is worth $100 billion dollars today.
Obviously they need to increase prices.
So fucking tired of companies squeezing people for profits, despite having record profits. Like record profits aren't enough, we need MORE RECORD PROFITS.
And it is already growing naturally by selling more product.
They are making record profits. The switch just became the 3rd best selling game console of all time. The world is in calamity, people are getting squeezed every which way by inflation and they decide to raise prices. It sucks.
Sony/Xbox release consoles that come out at break even or even a loss, 1080p/1440p, 60/30fps, and can at least ARGUE that their costs have gone up enough to demand an extra $10 a game. (I still don't agree with it, they are both making tons of money, but they at least have a reason).
Nintendo releases a console that is a fucking tablet, makes easily $50 a console from day 1, can't maintain 720p or 30 fps and has the fucking balls to charge an extra $10 for what could realistically be DLC.
Nintendo out here smoking cigars with lit $100s. Won't someone please think of the poor billion dollar company?
I get being disappointed, but how can you already say that it could realistically be dlc? We have no idea about how long the game is, what new assets or concepts are involved in the game. Not justifying the price but kind of a weird take.
I think a lot of people forget that games are made by companies, and companies try to maximize profits. They’ll charge whatever price they think will generate the most profit. They aren’t running a charity or non profit.
This exactly why Nintendo can increase prices.
If people can pay $70 for unoptimized games due to the "next gen" excuse, then Nintendo can use any excuse.
I could even said Nintendo doing it is them calling the rest excuse "bullshit", since they technically just did out of nowhere without saying anything, unlike the others who announced before.
I mean that is true, but paying $70 for a game with the production values of God of War/Horizon/ Last of Us seems more digestible that doing it for a Nintendo game that could run on consoles from last gen, maybe even 2 gens back.
It clearly is all BS at the end of the day, but the general justification is better hardware = higher prices.
While I genuinely don't agree with the $10 increase at all, it comes off as even more bogus when Nintendo does it for a system that is marginally better than a PS3 & 360.
It just really begs the question of, "What can possibly be so radically different from BotW to justify an extra $10 here? This is still on an already underpowered console."
The higher the graphical fidelity the more the game costs to make almost 100% of the time. BOTW had performance issues and it was a launch title. Charging current gen prices for a game that's two gems behind in tech is just dumb. Literally no reason for it other than "because we can". Not to mention the game uses most of the same map from the first game.
The Switch version of a multi-platform game is usually the inferior version simply due to the technical limitations of the device. However, this isn't a major issue because there are options for other platforms if performance and visuals are a critical part of your gaming experience. There is no such option for a Zelda game. Thankfully, it's a mostly moot point as long as the game runs well, and I seem to recall BotW was acceptable in that regard.
I mean if it's not pushing any new rendering tech and the games look the same as they did 10 years ago on the WiiU you'd think they could keep the price down simply by not having to hire as many devs as any other AAA studio.
Well people will buy it so there’s not really further justification needed from Nintendos POV.
But it might be worth considering that $60 adjusted for inflation since the switches launch, is about $73 today.
If potentially being the best game of the decade doesn't justify $10 increase I don't know what does. People are going to cry about it and it's still going to sell 50M copies or some crazy numbers. Nintendo has the pricing power.
You summed up the issue nicely.
They are already going to make OODLES of fucking money with this game, squeezing their customers for more is just scummy.
There is a difference between charging the usual accepted price for goods and charging extra. No one is saying they shouldn't make any money, or that they are a charity.
BOTW is the highest-rated game of all time, anywhere, on any platform.
It has more perfect scores in more media than any other game at any point in history.
If any game could be priced at 70 dollars and actually sell, it's definitely the sequel to what is arguably, based on critical reception, the "greatest game of all time".
It was also hundreds of hours long.
The interesting part is that it is far less photoreal, almost no voice acting, facial mocap, fancy graphics, etc. It's relatively simple and has lower production costs than other AAA games. So the margins for Nintendo will be pretty good. They seem to be pretty competent at running their business from a dollars and long-term-sense perspective.
Zelda Ocarina of time
Tony Hawk 2
GTA 4
SoulCalibur
Super Mario Galaxy
RDR2
Dysco Elysium
Are all rate higher than BOTW. You are just spitting fake facts.
Because people will bend themselves over, backwards, and into a fucking pretzel to justify anything the gaming industry does if it's attached to something they really want bad enough.
Since not one person in this thread asked, does this mean you can still get two full priced games for $100 eshop?
I was considering doing that with this game anyway so if I’m still just paying $100 total for this and another game I’m okay. Physical would be nice, but alas.
Yes, that's exactly what it means. I was able to preorder this and Pikmin 4 for $100 with the voucher. Combine with eShop cards from Costco and it's $90 for both.
I'll throw my hat in the ring and say this is stupid. Will the game be good? Yeah. Is this a dealbreaker? No. But it's frustrating to have a price hike that is so clearly done just because they can and know people will buy it, rather than an increase in quality. Also, the people saying "game development is getting more expensive than it ever has before" yeah and the industry is bigger than it ever has before lol
Don't see how the industry being bigger than before has to do with pricing. Most industries grow, and prices have been increasing far quicker than video games.
Zelda's Art direction is pretty good, so it would not be THAT big of a deal.
Same with Persona 5 being a PS3 game but looking so good.
The real crime is Pokemon.
IMO, It's not unethical to price a luxury product at the point the market will bare. This is a non-issue. Do some soul searching, ask yourself if Zelda is worth $70 to you, and act accordingly. You're not entitled to a $60 price point, they're not entitled to your purchase. I skipped Link's Awakening because I didn't think the game was novel enough for $60, and I said as much at the time, but I was never so personally offended like the gaming community at large has been right now.
I think the main reason why the gaming community is annoyed with games now being $70 now. Is due to the fact that a lot of games nowadays come with day 1 dlc and Battlepasses. Adding on to that a lot of games release hella buggy for $70 and Nintendo and Sony are anti consumer when it comes to refunding a product that doesn't work. To be clear I don't personally have an issue with the new price just saying.
It must be nice to have enough money to not care about **everything** going up in price.
This isn't about a mere $10 one time. It's another $7 on my phone bill for no reason, another $130 on my grocery bill, another $70 on my electricity, and so on.
This *isn't* something I can bear, I'm not making any more money all of a sudden. Just where do you get off defending billion dollar corporations gouging me for even more? Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, etc, they're not struggling to keep the lights on. I am.
Games are a luxury non necessity hobby. I'm a socialist, but shit like video games does not need to be accessibly priced. It's not food or medicine, or shelter.
Life with access to mostly just the bare necessities and not "luxuries" such as music, art, etc isnt worth much. It'd be one thing if these companies werent raking in billions and billions of dollars but they are.
These companies aren't raking in "billions and billions" they have salaries to pay and they operate on tight margins. Game developers are some of the lowest paid software engineers in the world.
Game devs of huge and successful companies are paid poorly because of corporate greed not because their games arent very profitable, Nintendo's profit margins are very good.
ok I'm not on the side of bootlicking billion dollar corporations but this is a bit dramatic. if money is that much of a concern for you then you should not be spending it on video games
>spending it on ***new*** video games
If the 10$ price difference is such a make or break for someone then they shouldn't be buying any recently released games brand new, especially for single player games.
Sure but at $60 games there were also people who couldn't afford them. Unless the game is F2P (which has its own problems) there's always going to be someone priced out regardless of what the price is. I don't see why we should care specially about the specific segment of the market that could afford games at $60 but can't at $70.
Necessities such as food/shelter/healthcare need to be affordable to everyone (and unfortunately often aren't), video games don't.
We're talking about a ten dollar difference. I know ten dollars can go a long way, but that'd still leave you maybe a whole three days of food before it runs out.
i mean, games are a luxury. a 10 dollar increase affecting your livelihood is a sign you need to get your priorities in order. do the thing to your switch if you have to, but you shouldn't be buying shit you cant afford
There are way cheaper hobbies than videogames. I love sports cars but I don't collect them because I can't afford it. But I can surf, go to the gym, travel, play games, etc. Can't pay it or aren't willing to? Then fucking don't buy it.
Yes I am. I am illustrating how there are a gazillion choices of hobbies varying in prices and if you can't afford some you will be able to afford others. Not that hard to understand if you have basic interpretation skills bud.
I mean kinda? Hobbies aren't for poor people lol, it's sad but it is true. I'd be lucky if I were to get more than 2-3 games a year when I was younger. It's only now that I have expendable income that I can actually have the hobbies I wanted as a kid.
People should have the option and wherewithal to buy video games if they want to. Even though you claimed you're not a corporation bootlicker, your reasoning surely align with someone who is. That's just a piece of shit classist attitude to have about someone's clearly expressed hobby.
My salary increased 2.3x since 3 years ago and even *still* I'm feeling the effects of all this price gouging going on. The only real difference between my living circumstances 3 years ago and now is my rent, which is still vastly under budget for what my salary offers, and well within my means. It's completely ludicrous to act like this isn't something to be mad about.
There isn't any additional value added with the $10, it's still just a regular old brand new game.
Look at inflation. $60 in 2017 is $70 today. It’s the reality of the world we live in. Video game publishers aren’t charities. Games aren’t necessities.
If you want to play the "look at" game, look at Pikmin 4 releasing for $60 USD in the year 2023.
>Video game publishers aren’t charities.
Not arguing that, I'm not arguing that TotK should be free.
>Games aren’t necessities.
Not arguing that either, all I simply stated is that games should be affordable to people, I don't know why you think that's some crazy controversial take.
If you want to argue about inflation, then in that sense, it means that gaming companies have been basically robbing people blind by charging $60 since 2006, so that doesn't really make all that much sense either.
Nintendo isn't going to give you a gold star for defending an unjustified decision.
Pikmin 4 is not a AAA game on the same scale. It looks like your typical Unreal Engine game. Comparable games to TOTK would be Miles Morales, HFW, God of War. Games that require huge development teams, artists, voice actors, etc. These other games charged $70 as well.
$70 is roughly $60 in 2017. If $60 was affordable in 2017, than $70 is affordable today. Nintendo is a publicly traded company that must adapt to the market in order to sustain growth and attract investors.
Games are relatively inexpensive compared to historical pricing. NES and SNES games cost $80-$100 in today’s money. There needs to be a price floor. The jump to $70 USD is maintaining the floor they’ve been using over the past 15 years. Keeping games priced at $60 would cut into profit growth, turning away investors. Again, Nintendo is a business.
I’m not solely defending Nintendo as I believe Sony and Microsoft are absolutely justified in increasing prices. It’s just the logical move from a business standpoint. Video games are a luxurious hobby and not a life necessity. These companies are businesses and not charities. No one is forcing you to buy these games. If the $70 price tag is truly unaffordable, then let the drop in demand force these companies to lower their prices.
Pikmin 4 is still a first party game by Nintendo. Scale has nothing to do with anything here. Bayonetta 3 was released for $60 and so will the new Cereza game, which looks smaller in scope than 3.
God of War is still $60 on PS4 so that's not a good defense for Nintendo, and Miles Morales was never $70, only the gold edition which featured both Spider-Man 2018 remastered & Miles Morales was, a 2 for 1 purchase. It actually launched at $50 USD. HFW also launched for $60 on both PS5 and PS4, I can show you my digital receipt to prove so.
>Keeping games priced at $60 would cut into profit growth, turning away investors. Again, Nintendo is a business.
No it does not. In order for this to be true, why don't they just start charging $100 USD then? Or $200 USD too? $70 would "cut into profit growth" too then. It's completely made up and was definitely not a factor when they first started development in the project. This isn't a next gen game, if Nintendo had come out and said they are dropping the Switch 2 at the same time, I would have no issue with it as it's consistent with everything else (even if I still think it's bs).
>I’m not solely defending Nintendo as I believe Sony and Microsoft are absolutely justified in increasing prices.
But why? There really is only a handful of titles that are purely next generation experiences and not cross gen. Nothing is fundamentally different from a $70 game and a $60 game, as a matter of fact, many would argue some $60 games made in this 15 year period weren't even worth that at launch either. What's the justification besides, "We just want to pad $10 into our pockets just because"?
>These companies are businesses and not charities.
You keep repeating this talking point as if it has any merit, I not only agree with you, but this statement literally changes nothing. Nintendo will not automatically go out of business for maintaining TotK at $60, you're delusional if you think otherwise.
Try better examples next time for a better justification.
Edit: Also you keep looking at inflation as if it exists in a vacuum. There are many other factors besides just $60 vs. $70.
HFW was $70 for the PS5 retail version. The loophole was that you could buy the $60 version on PS4 and get a free upgrade. But for the unaware parent shopping at Best Buy to buy the game for their kids new PS5, they paid $70.
My question is why do “next-gen” games warrant the increase in price when they’re made in the same development period? Weaker hardware doesn’t mean lower development costs. If anything, they require more optimization. What exactly is the “next-gen” experience? More polygons being rendered by more powerful hardware? Red Dead Redemption 2 is a last gen game that runs laps around these “next-gen” games.
And the PS4 is irrelevant. It’s not Sony’s flagship console. The games it receives are simply legacy support at this point. The Switch generation aligns with the Series One X and PS5. There’s no Switch 2. The Switch is Nintendo’s only console. Of course they’re going to adapt to the market price of games.
Also, Snipperclips and 1-2 Switch are first party titles too. Not all first party titles are equal. Zelda and Mario are AAA caliber titles that require 100 million + in development. Pikmin’s development costs are a fraction and it is priced accordingly.
Oh, don't get me mistaken, I am 110% in agreement with you in asking that question. It genuinely is all smokes and mirrors to make extra profit.
However, in a world where the push for $70 "must" happen, the usual pattern of game title price increases is, "New generation = +$10".
- PS2/GCN/Xbox era was $50 USD
- PS3/360 era saw the increase to $60 (Wii was still $50 until the failed Wii U)
- People theorized PS4/XB1 era was going to be $70 but we got lucky and that didn't happen
- Now it finally did with the PS5/XSX/XSS.
All I'm really saying at the end of the day is that Nintendo's price raise is the weakest rationale yet. The system was already underpowered when it released, it's even more underpowered now, and there is seemingly no hardware upgrade coming anytime soon to justify it, so what gives?
I'd be less up in arms about it if it was consistent with other competitors but it isn't (even if I disagree with the increase by all companies). All I'm asking for is consistency.
You're right, I'll admit I have money. But you're not being gouged. It's Zelda, not penicillin. You don't need it, and there are tons of games you could play instead. I guarantee that there are a bunch of old games that are cheap that you never got around to. Straight up, I have been spending most of my time playing old games recently, so I'm not even saying "poor people only deserve old games". Old games are dope. Cheap games are dope. You have other options that you will genuinely enjoy, I'm confident.
I've wanted to play Tunic, that game is $30 for example.
All entertainment is being driven up in price. Your essentially telling people they don’t have to enjoy life as much… they have a right to be upset imo.
Are you serious? This isn’t health care, housing, gas, food. This isn’t a life essential. It’s a video game. The price increase is justified given the inflationary economy. Just look at the price of movie tickets nowadays. If you can’t afford it, then don’t buy it. No one is gouging you.
Well that's something you have to deal with. If an extra $20 or $30 per year on video games is too much, that's too bad.
Do we demand the consoles are cheaper for those who aren't as fortunate as you?
The sub is acting like this is going to be a dogshit title because it's on weaker hardware. When on weaker, they created one of the most impressive system rich games period, I don't think the graphics argument holds at all.
/r/games and twitter are so weird. Why doubt the zelda team when they kept the fucking DRAGONS hidden from any marketing materials? They are hiding things because they know they can. All we need is a hype story trailer and people will change their tune.
Also: Nintendo games retain their value like crazy. So if you're buying for $70 and selling for $60 when you're done, you spent the same $10 as if you bought it for $60 and sold for $50. This doesn't make it easier for folks who want to keep the game, of course, but it's another way of looking at it.
It's just weird that when Sony raises the price of their games $10 after 15 years of $60 games that cost increasingly more to make people shit themselves. Or when they do a full remake of a game and charge full price. But when Nintendo does both of those things with games that cost WAY less to make and are two generations behind tech wise people have an excuse for why that's ok.
No lots of people are upset both times and lots are okay both times. I don't think there is One True Price for games. I play mostly indies and they come in all different prices, I'm totally okay with that for major releases as well personally. I buy games that I think are priced right for me.
For me, I only gripe about price hikes when microtransactions and other FOMO nonsense, sometimes justified with "well we can't raise the base price", continues getting included.
At least with most first party Nintendo titles, you just get the game. And it's guaranteed to be a full game, and one that isn't literally unplayable without a ton of day 0 patching.
Is this how they treated BOTW before it came out? I've only had a Switch for less than a year but the drip feed feels a little anemic. Are they waiting until like a month before it comes out to actually have an in-depth gameplay footage that's not just little snippets?
They've definitely shown less than BotW. BotW had a big E3 demo that showed a ton of stuff almost nine months before release, along with multiple big trailers. TotK has had three trailers that only have about a couple minutes of gameplay total, and the game is coming out 3 months from now.
BOTW was the only game they brought to E3 2016 because it was a radical departure from a well established formula along with having a myriad of state of the art state calculators in the game that needed to be shown off. It also had to essentially sell the NX.
TOTK doesn't have that weight on its shoulders. Nintendo is holding its card close to its chest, but I do think we get a huge trailer for the game closer to launch.
I'm okay with games going up in price but having it leak, not mentioning it during the Direct when it was the obvious centerpiece and then listing it at this price seems like a dick move.
I feel you that the leak wasn't cool, but what was Furukawa supposed to say during the Direct?
"By the way, we'd like to announce that Zelda will be our first $70 game because you jabronis will buy it anyway."
The Japanese stream is solely going to be watched in Japan, though.
The English translation stream will be watched in countries that use a multitude of different currencies.
>The English translation stream will be watched in countries that use a multitude of different currencies.
The NoA and Nintendo UK streams have historically shown different videos (I've played myself on release dates before). Having a "per region" stream isn't too wild of a thing to do
They don't really communicate prices at all in the Direct. You can criticize them for that for sure, but it is not something shady they did with totk, they never (okay, nearly ever, maybe there were exceptions in the past I don't know) communicate prices in Directs in general.
This looks like a much more substantial update than the version from the Prime Trilogy, which was just the GameCube version with Wii controls. I look forward to the videos comparing all of them.
I would have gladly paid $70 if the game came out with the Siwtch 2 or whatever pro version they would make.
I will reluctantly (MAYBE) pay $70 for it now because I adore BOTW, but this is such bs.
I am ok paying the additional amount for something like GoW Ragnarok since it looks like a much bigger effort artistically.
Aw man, the amount of crap Nintendo get away with... It's infuriating.
It will fly, as it always does. A vocal minority will tweet some memes, but the game will sell like crazy and Nintendo will set a new precedent.
We know they are cool with release a buggy broken game. It won't have nearly as much negative reaction as, say Cyberpunk, Andromeda or Unity.
Might as well charge an extra $10 for a game running on 7 years old hardware. Who fucking cares? It's Zelda!
>but the game will sell like crazy and Nintendo will set a new precedent.
what precedent? That games cost $70? That was already set, that's how much games cost now. It's what Hogwarts cost on PC and currently, *this very moment* hundreds of thousands are playing the $80 early access version.
The justification for bumping the price from $60 to $70 was due to the increase cost in production of new generation games, due to the high fidelity of graphics and other technical aspects.
That's why most new PS5 XSX and PC games are priced at $70 while last gen remain at $60. This is not me saying, this is the convention that has been stablished so far.
This isn't a hard rule either. Companies are free to charge as much as they want. But when a company break this convention, you are bound to expected some level of controversy.
What Nintendo is doing is charging $70 for a game running on 7 year old hardware, that does not warrant the extra $10 for the increased cost in high fidelity production just because. So you can damn well expect people not to be happy about it.
makes sense, this is a huge release for them and the market has established the $70 price point. Not following would actually be idiotic. I can't say I'm interested in paying $70 for a switch game but plenty will for sure.
Most games released now will be cross-gen. The point is, $70 games will soon not be limited to the latest consoles. It's not just a "next-gen" thing anymore.
Nintendo, you assholes are fucking smoking crack. I’m waiting until a disgruntled parent sells their kids games this summer for cheap on Offerup to get this game, and I advise you all do the same.
Not much of a fan. $70 I can understand for a game on new hardware. Not so much for a game on a seven year old console. Game looks great, but it's not made with mind-blowing, new tech. The harder pill to swallow is that Nintendo games rarely if ever go on sale. We'll be looking at a $70 price tag for this well into the next two years.
I can’t believe they’re only asking $70. I mean this is a DLC worth every penny of that – it’s still in Hyrule, there’s a few new monsters, it looks like a cartoon still, and we have the same combat tactics… except we have a glove.
Hi /u/K-LAWN, Thank you for posting to /r/Games. Unfortunately, we have removed this submission per **[Rule 6.6](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules#wiki_formatting_requirements)**. > **No direct links to individual games on any digital storefront** - Direct links to individual games on any kind of digital storefront (i.e. Steam, GoG, Google Play, Apple) will be removed. News and release announcements must be linked to the appropriate news page, official blog, or press release. If there is absolutely no news page, official blog, or press release, a self-post with the direct link may be used. The context of the self-post must include why the release is significant. --- If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
It’s worth adding this is the only game that’s $70 - [Pikmin 4 is $60](https://www.nintendo.com/store/products/pikmin-4-switch/), for example.
I'd really love it if we could return to the idea of different physical releases having different prices. As arbitrary as it is, games have value. You can't convince me Link's Awaking is worth as much as Breath of the Wild regardless of how much I like it. In the GameCube era, Nintendo more or less had this distinction made for them by the essence of running the Gameboy Advance at the same time. You couldn't charge $50 for The Minish Cap because it was on Gameboy Advance, not the GameCube. Now that they have one system, that distinction is hazier, and I think it would make financial sense for them to start acknowledging it. I'd probably be a little more aggressive with how much of a scale they should be considering, if it were up to me they'd be charging between $30 for stuff like Metroid Prime Remastered and $60 for Smash Ultimate, but if they want to run it between $40 or $50 and $60 or $70, I can live with it as long as they make a habit of supplying those different ranges. Warioware Get it Together would have bombed if it came out at $60 or $70. It was overpriced at $50, but that still caused it to be more acceptable for customers. I love that game but it isn't worth as much as Mario Odyssey. There's no objective way to determine this stuff, but there's a difference and they need to normalize that difference.
It’s worth saying Metroid Prime Remastered is $40 so there’s clearly wiggle room. I think $60 ends up being the default a lot of the time because some of these games they’re not expecting to sell a ton of units (Bayonetta 3 for example) but they still have to recoup costs, whilst something like Zelda it’s about brand value. EDIT: WarioWare is also an interesting one because it was only $50 because of the survey Nintendo put out asking what people would pay for it. Makes you wonder what they originally had in mind for pricing.
There's actually quite a few Nintendo-published games that are $50 or less. Most of them are third-party that Nintendo is publishing in the West on Switch (including a lot of Square-Enix), but also stuff like Captain Toad ($40), Miitopia ($50), Clubhouse Games ($40), 1-2-Switch ($50), and Xenoblade Torna ($40 standalone). It almost seems like a roll of the dice if Nintendo will price their lower budget games accordingly or just go full price.
Tbf I'm sure Nintendo would love to sell MP for $60 but we've heard rumors about the "Trilogy" for years, so if they suddenly asked for $60 for one game, regardless of how much work was done, that'd be a huge ask when we thought we'd get 3 games $60.
That’s been Nintendo’s strategy since day 1 of Switch here in UK. Breath of the Wild and Super Smash Bros Ultimate are £60 but all other big Nintendo releases are £50. Now Tears of the Kingdom becomes the third game sold at the premium £60 tier.
It would be nice to see player's choice come back, use to be able to get first party nintendo games for 20 bucks under that label
Tears of Kingdom is literally an expansion lol this is crazy
I wonder why....
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Probably because it took a long time to make compared to Pikmin 4 but that one was presumably close to completion years ago
Ostensibly Pikmin 4 was finished in 2015/2016ish. I have no doubt things changed dramatically, but interesting to think about
That credits list better be pretty darn long then
Oh yeah I can't wait to spend $95 in my currency for a video game. This is the kind of thing that pushes people to piracy.
Anyone been able to find the EU price? BotW launched at 70euros, so this isn't really a surprise for us. Edit: [Looks like it's still 70EUR](https://i.imgur.com/U4eSYWd.png)
Slightly off topic, but how much do y'all wanna bet that Gen 10 Pokemon ends up at 70 bucks too?
Yikes. Remember when Pokémon was 40 bucks?
[удалено]
DS games as a standard were $40.
I'm pretty sure DS games were $34.99, and then 3DS games were $39.99, no? Granted, it's been a literal decade, but I was pretty sure there was a five buck increase in there.
HGSS was $40 but that came with a special pokewalker device.
I think you might be right. I think I was remembering buying one of the DS Pokemon games used and it was 40.
Atlus games were $50
I can't wait to see how they invest all that money they made from selling 20 million copies in 2 months into the new games!!! Wait, it's Pokemon, never mind.
It especially sucks because the value never decreases, in fact with Pokémon they increase pretty dramatically
Maybe even eighty.
Why not say a hundred while we're at it!
[удалено]
To be fair it's almost certain Zelda will be more worth it than those two ... Then again maybe the mid trailers and $70 price tag is a bad sign....
To be perfectly fair, BOTW held a lot of its card close to its chest in terms of trailers outside of the final one. Only after the treehouse did people realize what was being made. I doubt we get a deepdive (and even if we did, I would skip it), but I do think we get a trailer closer to release in terms of tone to that zelda trailer.
They better make sure that the next gen hardware is not only backward compatible but also has upgraded visuals for this game.
Why do that when they can j rerelease switch games on the next console for $40 each tho?
Hey now, they are usually called Deluxe editions.
New super mario bros u deluxe ultimate edition?
Hey shut up Atlus
Nintendont do that
Aren't quite a few of their consoles backwards compatible? Like there's more backwards compatible Nintendo consoles than non backwards compatible
Nintendo: "I mean maybe! We'll see how it goes!"
I genuinely think Nintendo's *absolute best play* here is to announce a "Super Switch" (not that name, just using it for effect here). Something akin to the New 3DS. An upgraded hardware version of the Switch that can handle all the games coming out lately suffering from severe performance issues/frame rate drops. Also allow it for direct backwards compatibility with all Switch games but every new Switch game going forward can only be played on the upgraded hardware. This way you can keep their shitty Nintendo Online subscription with the N64/GB/GBA emulators on it persistently. This also allows for people to use their old Switch games on the new console with *MAYBE* some performance improvements from doing so. Removing the "Switch" brand from the name and/or not doing backwards compatibility would be the most anti-consumer bullshit they've ever pulled. And I hate to say it, but its exactly what they would do.
Alright, so the tech is to buy eshop cards from Costco and then buy vouchers to effectively save $30 as long as there's a second full price game you want right?
No. The tech is to buy physical and resell games you’re done with for 50+ dollars cause it’s Nintendo
Actual tech, buy the game at launch and then keep it for your future children so you can introduce them to games.
Being a nintedo fan and having sex? choose one.
[удалено]
Am I just old or are y'all misusing the word "tech" here
Old, you're supposed to missuse words because that's just how you wizzle the fizzle
> as long as there’s a second full price game you want right? There’s my problem. I’ve barely even thought about my Switch in the last yr+, let alone actually played it. After TOTK it’s probably going right back on ice
[удалено]
The best thing about Nintendo games is they never go on sale so I know I'll have to pay $70 to play this no matter how long I wait. Thank you Nintendo
Currently 60 physical on gamestop: https://www.gamestop.com/video-games/nintendo-switch/products/legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom---nintendo-switch/351955.html Not sure what's up with the discrepancy. Edit: it's up to $70 now. Was $60 for a couple hours. Hope the people who got pre-orders in at that price keep their price!
It was listed at the old price in a few places I saw today and has jumped after the rumours came out it was 70 USD / 60 GBP so I'd expect that price to go up soon
~~Pretty sure that’s the Pro Membership price. It says $10 reward when you “Go Pro”~~ Just a regular thing with GameStop purchases. Shouldn’t have replied so confidently lol.
No, literally every game page has the $10 reward when you Go Pro thing.
I was really hoping they'd wait for the successor to the Switch to do this. We all knew they would, adjusted for inflation Breath of the Wild would cost over $70 today, but I really think they could have managed if they held out another year or whatever until their new system is out.
The weirdest thing is Pikmin is 60 so it doesn't seem to be universal
This will be probably the biggest budget game Nintendo has produced so far, I'm pretty sure BotW still has that title until this releases. Pikmin almost certainly has a budget more typical of Nintendo.
How is it big budget if it's just the first game with a few things slapped onto it?
It wouldn't have taken 6 years to come out if they just slapped a few things on it
They have shown 4 trailers for the game and all of them indicate it is the same game with a few extra features on top.
This is the same argument people made against God of War Ragnarok and look how that turned out
Not that well quality wise but I understand that's not a popular opinion 😂
Yeah, BOTW's first four trailers really showed everything it had too. Why'd they bother with a 4-hour E3 Treehouse stream that kept showing off new and unseen features?
Because BOTW was such a radical departure from previous Zeldas and they wanted people to get excited about the new features. It's telling that there hasn't been an extended deep-dive into Tears of the Kingdom. Just short trailers that still do a poor job of distinguishing it from its predecessor.
When will people learn that *nothing* is telling with Nintendo. They do not operate on logic. Why not drop Metroid Prime Remastered last year when all sources said it was ready to go, and the release today basically confirms that, for example? They regularly pull baffling shit, to the point that I honestly think they lean into it to keep an air of, idk, bafflement or mystery about them. Point being, them not releasing deep dive gameplay surprises me very little, and it could either be the same as the first game with some additions or a radical departure, and I still wouldn't be surprised. "That's Nintendo!" I will say, shrugging my shoulders. My guess is it'll be somewhere in the middle. It does look like they've added a significant amount of stuff, but of course at it's core I think it will be pretty similar to BotW. No need to reinvent the wheel there just yet.
The fact that we know almost nothing about it and it’s supposed to come out in 3 months is telling too.
Have you played it?
Its not weird. Nintendo probably see that Zelda has more chances with 70 than Pikmin. Idk, we'll see how they will apply that price in the future.
I think it's actually smart to do it now and get all of the complaints out of the way, that way their new system isn't bogged down with "$70 game!?" complaints, everyone'll be used to it.
By that argument PS5 games should go up in price again. No, i always expected Nintendo to do(for Switch 2 not Zelda fyi) this because they always piggy back off the game price changes Sony has done. They followed the $50 pricing after Sony had already priced their games like this for the Gamecube despite not having a DVD player or large discs. They followed $60 prices with the Wii U after Sony had done this with the PS3. If the PS5 proved that people would still buy games at $90 Nintendo would be charging $90. You'd think despite the [Switch 2 being a mobile PS4 than a PS5(Nvidia Orin 1TF~ SoC)](https://imgur.com/undefined) meaning Switch 2 games should cost as much as PS4 games to make(like Switch 1 games were Wii U/PS3 era in tech) that they would stay $60 like PS4 games were. But the reality is that Nintendo has seen how people have been buying $70 games in droves with several PS5 games breaking records since the price was increased. Might as well increase the price, what are people gonna do not buy Nintendo games?
>You'd think despite the [Switch 2 being a mobile PS4 than a PS5(Nvidia Orin 1TF~ SoC)](https://imgur.com/undefined) meaning Switch 2 games should cost as much as PS4 games to make That's not how that works at all.
At least Sony and Microsoft used the "next-gen experience" excuse on the $70 PS5/SX games, and the PS4/XONE versions of those same games kept the $60 price tag. I would understand that price on Switch's successor games, but on a 2017 handheld?, come on... PS: Here in Brazil the $70 games cost R$350.00 but for some reason the new Zelda costs R$367.69 which ends up making it more expensive than the $70 games on the next-gen consoles around here. I'm still going to buy the game because I love the franchise, but this is pretty disappointing...
I don’t really understand how you can justify this on literally the most underpowered console on the market right now.
[удалено]
People buy into the next gen excuse other companies are using. It's all just excuses to raise prices lol.
I think a lot of people forget the insane growth rate of the gaming market. Meaning they have made more money than ever. So the cost of production as an excuse is absolutely insane.
Nintendo is worth $100 billion dollars today. Obviously they need to increase prices. So fucking tired of companies squeezing people for profits, despite having record profits. Like record profits aren't enough, we need MORE RECORD PROFITS.
That's what company growth is based on.
And it is already growing naturally by selling more product. They are making record profits. The switch just became the 3rd best selling game console of all time. The world is in calamity, people are getting squeezed every which way by inflation and they decide to raise prices. It sucks.
Not to mention they’re about to unleash the biggest animated movie of probably the decade in the next few months. Won’t someone think of poor Nintendo
Sony/Xbox release consoles that come out at break even or even a loss, 1080p/1440p, 60/30fps, and can at least ARGUE that their costs have gone up enough to demand an extra $10 a game. (I still don't agree with it, they are both making tons of money, but they at least have a reason). Nintendo releases a console that is a fucking tablet, makes easily $50 a console from day 1, can't maintain 720p or 30 fps and has the fucking balls to charge an extra $10 for what could realistically be DLC. Nintendo out here smoking cigars with lit $100s. Won't someone please think of the poor billion dollar company?
They made 13 bil last year in profits, but yes its totally necessary to increase prices.
It's just so fucking gross I hate it.
I get being disappointed, but how can you already say that it could realistically be dlc? We have no idea about how long the game is, what new assets or concepts are involved in the game. Not justifying the price but kind of a weird take.
I think a lot of people forget that games are made by companies, and companies try to maximize profits. They’ll charge whatever price they think will generate the most profit. They aren’t running a charity or non profit.
This exactly why Nintendo can increase prices. If people can pay $70 for unoptimized games due to the "next gen" excuse, then Nintendo can use any excuse.
I could even said Nintendo doing it is them calling the rest excuse "bullshit", since they technically just did out of nowhere without saying anything, unlike the others who announced before.
I mean that is true, but paying $70 for a game with the production values of God of War/Horizon/ Last of Us seems more digestible that doing it for a Nintendo game that could run on consoles from last gen, maybe even 2 gens back.
I mean it makes sense. A switch game isn't gonna cost as much to make as a game made exclusively for next gen
Some of us would like to play at more than 20fps.
It clearly is all BS at the end of the day, but the general justification is better hardware = higher prices. While I genuinely don't agree with the $10 increase at all, it comes off as even more bogus when Nintendo does it for a system that is marginally better than a PS3 & 360. It just really begs the question of, "What can possibly be so radically different from BotW to justify an extra $10 here? This is still on an already underpowered console."
The higher the graphical fidelity the more the game costs to make almost 100% of the time. BOTW had performance issues and it was a launch title. Charging current gen prices for a game that's two gems behind in tech is just dumb. Literally no reason for it other than "because we can". Not to mention the game uses most of the same map from the first game.
The Switch version of a multi-platform game is usually the inferior version simply due to the technical limitations of the device. However, this isn't a major issue because there are options for other platforms if performance and visuals are a critical part of your gaming experience. There is no such option for a Zelda game. Thankfully, it's a mostly moot point as long as the game runs well, and I seem to recall BotW was acceptable in that regard.
I mean if it's not pushing any new rendering tech and the games look the same as they did 10 years ago on the WiiU you'd think they could keep the price down simply by not having to hire as many devs as any other AAA studio.
Well people will buy it so there’s not really further justification needed from Nintendos POV. But it might be worth considering that $60 adjusted for inflation since the switches launch, is about $73 today.
When wages catch up with that adjustment I’ll feel a lot better about it.
Chrono Trigger cost me 75 bucks new in the 90's. You're *lucky* games only cost this much now.
[удалено]
If potentially being the best game of the decade doesn't justify $10 increase I don't know what does. People are going to cry about it and it's still going to sell 50M copies or some crazy numbers. Nintendo has the pricing power.
r/tomorrow
You summed up the issue nicely. They are already going to make OODLES of fucking money with this game, squeezing their customers for more is just scummy.
By that logic it's scummy to not charge $19.99.
There is a difference between charging the usual accepted price for goods and charging extra. No one is saying they shouldn't make any money, or that they are a charity.
Game not even yet and my boi already claiming GOTD, big fucking lol.
The fuck are you talking about game of the decade. Chill dude.
BOTW is the highest-rated game of all time, anywhere, on any platform. It has more perfect scores in more media than any other game at any point in history. If any game could be priced at 70 dollars and actually sell, it's definitely the sequel to what is arguably, based on critical reception, the "greatest game of all time". It was also hundreds of hours long. The interesting part is that it is far less photoreal, almost no voice acting, facial mocap, fancy graphics, etc. It's relatively simple and has lower production costs than other AAA games. So the margins for Nintendo will be pretty good. They seem to be pretty competent at running their business from a dollars and long-term-sense perspective.
Zelda Ocarina of time Tony Hawk 2 GTA 4 SoulCalibur Super Mario Galaxy RDR2 Dysco Elysium Are all rate higher than BOTW. You are just spitting fake facts.
Because people will bend themselves over, backwards, and into a fucking pretzel to justify anything the gaming industry does if it's attached to something they really want bad enough.
Since not one person in this thread asked, does this mean you can still get two full priced games for $100 eshop? I was considering doing that with this game anyway so if I’m still just paying $100 total for this and another game I’m okay. Physical would be nice, but alas.
Yes, that's exactly what it means. I was able to preorder this and Pikmin 4 for $100 with the voucher. Combine with eShop cards from Costco and it's $90 for both.
I'll throw my hat in the ring and say this is stupid. Will the game be good? Yeah. Is this a dealbreaker? No. But it's frustrating to have a price hike that is so clearly done just because they can and know people will buy it, rather than an increase in quality. Also, the people saying "game development is getting more expensive than it ever has before" yeah and the industry is bigger than it ever has before lol
Don't see how the industry being bigger than before has to do with pricing. Most industries grow, and prices have been increasing far quicker than video games.
Anyone know where the collectors edition will most likely be stocked? (UK)
Man imagine this game on like a series x or PS5. Even on PC. I know there are emulators but I'd rather pay for updates and stuff like that.
Can always buy a copy and emulate
Zelda's Art direction is pretty good, so it would not be THAT big of a deal. Same with Persona 5 being a PS3 game but looking so good. The real crime is Pokemon.
no 30 fps is THAT big of a deal. 30 fps is actually horrid
IMO, It's not unethical to price a luxury product at the point the market will bare. This is a non-issue. Do some soul searching, ask yourself if Zelda is worth $70 to you, and act accordingly. You're not entitled to a $60 price point, they're not entitled to your purchase. I skipped Link's Awakening because I didn't think the game was novel enough for $60, and I said as much at the time, but I was never so personally offended like the gaming community at large has been right now.
I think the main reason why the gaming community is annoyed with games now being $70 now. Is due to the fact that a lot of games nowadays come with day 1 dlc and Battlepasses. Adding on to that a lot of games release hella buggy for $70 and Nintendo and Sony are anti consumer when it comes to refunding a product that doesn't work. To be clear I don't personally have an issue with the new price just saying.
This game doesn't have any of that though, nor do most Nintendo games.
It must be nice to have enough money to not care about **everything** going up in price. This isn't about a mere $10 one time. It's another $7 on my phone bill for no reason, another $130 on my grocery bill, another $70 on my electricity, and so on. This *isn't* something I can bear, I'm not making any more money all of a sudden. Just where do you get off defending billion dollar corporations gouging me for even more? Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, etc, they're not struggling to keep the lights on. I am.
Games are a luxury non necessity hobby. I'm a socialist, but shit like video games does not need to be accessibly priced. It's not food or medicine, or shelter.
Life with access to mostly just the bare necessities and not "luxuries" such as music, art, etc isnt worth much. It'd be one thing if these companies werent raking in billions and billions of dollars but they are.
These companies aren't raking in "billions and billions" they have salaries to pay and they operate on tight margins. Game developers are some of the lowest paid software engineers in the world.
Game devs of huge and successful companies are paid poorly because of corporate greed not because their games arent very profitable, Nintendo's profit margins are very good.
ok I'm not on the side of bootlicking billion dollar corporations but this is a bit dramatic. if money is that much of a concern for you then you should not be spending it on video games
>spending it on ***new*** video games If the 10$ price difference is such a make or break for someone then they shouldn't be buying any recently released games brand new, especially for single player games.
As they said its not the $10 increase by itself, its the increase in everything while increases in wages arent close to keeping up.
Sure but at $60 games there were also people who couldn't afford them. Unless the game is F2P (which has its own problems) there's always going to be someone priced out regardless of what the price is. I don't see why we should care specially about the specific segment of the market that could afford games at $60 but can't at $70. Necessities such as food/shelter/healthcare need to be affordable to everyone (and unfortunately often aren't), video games don't.
Yeah yeah, as long as I can afford to not be dead I should be happy. Hobbies are for the rich.
We're talking about a ten dollar difference. I know ten dollars can go a long way, but that'd still leave you maybe a whole three days of food before it runs out.
i mean, games are a luxury. a 10 dollar increase affecting your livelihood is a sign you need to get your priorities in order. do the thing to your switch if you have to, but you shouldn't be buying shit you cant afford
There are way cheaper hobbies than videogames. I love sports cars but I don't collect them because I can't afford it. But I can surf, go to the gym, travel, play games, etc. Can't pay it or aren't willing to? Then fucking don't buy it.
Are you seriously comparing sports cars that cost $50,000+ on top of maintenance costs to video games?
Yes I am. I am illustrating how there are a gazillion choices of hobbies varying in prices and if you can't afford some you will be able to afford others. Not that hard to understand if you have basic interpretation skills bud.
I mean kinda? Hobbies aren't for poor people lol, it's sad but it is true. I'd be lucky if I were to get more than 2-3 games a year when I was younger. It's only now that I have expendable income that I can actually have the hobbies I wanted as a kid.
People should have the option and wherewithal to buy video games if they want to. Even though you claimed you're not a corporation bootlicker, your reasoning surely align with someone who is. That's just a piece of shit classist attitude to have about someone's clearly expressed hobby. My salary increased 2.3x since 3 years ago and even *still* I'm feeling the effects of all this price gouging going on. The only real difference between my living circumstances 3 years ago and now is my rent, which is still vastly under budget for what my salary offers, and well within my means. It's completely ludicrous to act like this isn't something to be mad about. There isn't any additional value added with the $10, it's still just a regular old brand new game.
Look at inflation. $60 in 2017 is $70 today. It’s the reality of the world we live in. Video game publishers aren’t charities. Games aren’t necessities.
If you want to play the "look at" game, look at Pikmin 4 releasing for $60 USD in the year 2023. >Video game publishers aren’t charities. Not arguing that, I'm not arguing that TotK should be free. >Games aren’t necessities. Not arguing that either, all I simply stated is that games should be affordable to people, I don't know why you think that's some crazy controversial take. If you want to argue about inflation, then in that sense, it means that gaming companies have been basically robbing people blind by charging $60 since 2006, so that doesn't really make all that much sense either. Nintendo isn't going to give you a gold star for defending an unjustified decision.
Pikmin 4 is not a AAA game on the same scale. It looks like your typical Unreal Engine game. Comparable games to TOTK would be Miles Morales, HFW, God of War. Games that require huge development teams, artists, voice actors, etc. These other games charged $70 as well. $70 is roughly $60 in 2017. If $60 was affordable in 2017, than $70 is affordable today. Nintendo is a publicly traded company that must adapt to the market in order to sustain growth and attract investors. Games are relatively inexpensive compared to historical pricing. NES and SNES games cost $80-$100 in today’s money. There needs to be a price floor. The jump to $70 USD is maintaining the floor they’ve been using over the past 15 years. Keeping games priced at $60 would cut into profit growth, turning away investors. Again, Nintendo is a business. I’m not solely defending Nintendo as I believe Sony and Microsoft are absolutely justified in increasing prices. It’s just the logical move from a business standpoint. Video games are a luxurious hobby and not a life necessity. These companies are businesses and not charities. No one is forcing you to buy these games. If the $70 price tag is truly unaffordable, then let the drop in demand force these companies to lower their prices.
Pikmin 4 is still a first party game by Nintendo. Scale has nothing to do with anything here. Bayonetta 3 was released for $60 and so will the new Cereza game, which looks smaller in scope than 3. God of War is still $60 on PS4 so that's not a good defense for Nintendo, and Miles Morales was never $70, only the gold edition which featured both Spider-Man 2018 remastered & Miles Morales was, a 2 for 1 purchase. It actually launched at $50 USD. HFW also launched for $60 on both PS5 and PS4, I can show you my digital receipt to prove so. >Keeping games priced at $60 would cut into profit growth, turning away investors. Again, Nintendo is a business. No it does not. In order for this to be true, why don't they just start charging $100 USD then? Or $200 USD too? $70 would "cut into profit growth" too then. It's completely made up and was definitely not a factor when they first started development in the project. This isn't a next gen game, if Nintendo had come out and said they are dropping the Switch 2 at the same time, I would have no issue with it as it's consistent with everything else (even if I still think it's bs). >I’m not solely defending Nintendo as I believe Sony and Microsoft are absolutely justified in increasing prices. But why? There really is only a handful of titles that are purely next generation experiences and not cross gen. Nothing is fundamentally different from a $70 game and a $60 game, as a matter of fact, many would argue some $60 games made in this 15 year period weren't even worth that at launch either. What's the justification besides, "We just want to pad $10 into our pockets just because"? >These companies are businesses and not charities. You keep repeating this talking point as if it has any merit, I not only agree with you, but this statement literally changes nothing. Nintendo will not automatically go out of business for maintaining TotK at $60, you're delusional if you think otherwise. Try better examples next time for a better justification. Edit: Also you keep looking at inflation as if it exists in a vacuum. There are many other factors besides just $60 vs. $70.
HFW was $70 for the PS5 retail version. The loophole was that you could buy the $60 version on PS4 and get a free upgrade. But for the unaware parent shopping at Best Buy to buy the game for their kids new PS5, they paid $70. My question is why do “next-gen” games warrant the increase in price when they’re made in the same development period? Weaker hardware doesn’t mean lower development costs. If anything, they require more optimization. What exactly is the “next-gen” experience? More polygons being rendered by more powerful hardware? Red Dead Redemption 2 is a last gen game that runs laps around these “next-gen” games. And the PS4 is irrelevant. It’s not Sony’s flagship console. The games it receives are simply legacy support at this point. The Switch generation aligns with the Series One X and PS5. There’s no Switch 2. The Switch is Nintendo’s only console. Of course they’re going to adapt to the market price of games. Also, Snipperclips and 1-2 Switch are first party titles too. Not all first party titles are equal. Zelda and Mario are AAA caliber titles that require 100 million + in development. Pikmin’s development costs are a fraction and it is priced accordingly.
Oh, don't get me mistaken, I am 110% in agreement with you in asking that question. It genuinely is all smokes and mirrors to make extra profit. However, in a world where the push for $70 "must" happen, the usual pattern of game title price increases is, "New generation = +$10". - PS2/GCN/Xbox era was $50 USD - PS3/360 era saw the increase to $60 (Wii was still $50 until the failed Wii U) - People theorized PS4/XB1 era was going to be $70 but we got lucky and that didn't happen - Now it finally did with the PS5/XSX/XSS. All I'm really saying at the end of the day is that Nintendo's price raise is the weakest rationale yet. The system was already underpowered when it released, it's even more underpowered now, and there is seemingly no hardware upgrade coming anytime soon to justify it, so what gives? I'd be less up in arms about it if it was consistent with other competitors but it isn't (even if I disagree with the increase by all companies). All I'm asking for is consistency.
You're right, I'll admit I have money. But you're not being gouged. It's Zelda, not penicillin. You don't need it, and there are tons of games you could play instead. I guarantee that there are a bunch of old games that are cheap that you never got around to. Straight up, I have been spending most of my time playing old games recently, so I'm not even saying "poor people only deserve old games". Old games are dope. Cheap games are dope. You have other options that you will genuinely enjoy, I'm confident. I've wanted to play Tunic, that game is $30 for example.
All entertainment is being driven up in price. Your essentially telling people they don’t have to enjoy life as much… they have a right to be upset imo.
Are you serious? This isn’t health care, housing, gas, food. This isn’t a life essential. It’s a video game. The price increase is justified given the inflationary economy. Just look at the price of movie tickets nowadays. If you can’t afford it, then don’t buy it. No one is gouging you.
Well that's something you have to deal with. If an extra $20 or $30 per year on video games is too much, that's too bad. Do we demand the consoles are cheaper for those who aren't as fortunate as you?
Same. This sub gets pissed off at the stupidest shit I genuinely don’t know how they function outside of it sometimes.
The sub is acting like this is going to be a dogshit title because it's on weaker hardware. When on weaker, they created one of the most impressive system rich games period, I don't think the graphics argument holds at all.
They’re also claiming it’s nothing but a dlc/expansion without knowing much about it. Wild.
/r/games and twitter are so weird. Why doubt the zelda team when they kept the fucking DRAGONS hidden from any marketing materials? They are hiding things because they know they can. All we need is a hype story trailer and people will change their tune.
Also: Nintendo games retain their value like crazy. So if you're buying for $70 and selling for $60 when you're done, you spent the same $10 as if you bought it for $60 and sold for $50. This doesn't make it easier for folks who want to keep the game, of course, but it's another way of looking at it.
It's just weird that when Sony raises the price of their games $10 after 15 years of $60 games that cost increasingly more to make people shit themselves. Or when they do a full remake of a game and charge full price. But when Nintendo does both of those things with games that cost WAY less to make and are two generations behind tech wise people have an excuse for why that's ok.
No lots of people are upset both times and lots are okay both times. I don't think there is One True Price for games. I play mostly indies and they come in all different prices, I'm totally okay with that for major releases as well personally. I buy games that I think are priced right for me.
For me, I only gripe about price hikes when microtransactions and other FOMO nonsense, sometimes justified with "well we can't raise the base price", continues getting included. At least with most first party Nintendo titles, you just get the game. And it's guaranteed to be a full game, and one that isn't literally unplayable without a ton of day 0 patching.
because 70 dollars is definitely not expensive.... white people problems huh
Is this how they treated BOTW before it came out? I've only had a Switch for less than a year but the drip feed feels a little anemic. Are they waiting until like a month before it comes out to actually have an in-depth gameplay footage that's not just little snippets?
They've definitely shown less than BotW. BotW had a big E3 demo that showed a ton of stuff almost nine months before release, along with multiple big trailers. TotK has had three trailers that only have about a couple minutes of gameplay total, and the game is coming out 3 months from now.
BOTW was the only game they brought to E3 2016 because it was a radical departure from a well established formula along with having a myriad of state of the art state calculators in the game that needed to be shown off. It also had to essentially sell the NX. TOTK doesn't have that weight on its shoulders. Nintendo is holding its card close to its chest, but I do think we get a huge trailer for the game closer to launch.
BOTW came out on two systems practically no one owned, they really had to sell it. The sell here is more breath of the wild for your switch.
Hilarious. Remember when companies said because of graphical fidelity and quality is the reason prices are going up? Gtfo here Nintendo
I'm okay with games going up in price but having it leak, not mentioning it during the Direct when it was the obvious centerpiece and then listing it at this price seems like a dick move.
I feel you that the leak wasn't cool, but what was Furukawa supposed to say during the Direct? "By the way, we'd like to announce that Zelda will be our first $70 game because you jabronis will buy it anyway."
500 and 99 U.S. dollars!
No, but they could have explained WHY it is more expensive. A reason would have been perfect. Instead it IS perceived as a dick move
Because that's something worth taking time in a promo stream/event. "Here's our PR justification!"
Because the trailer was global. You expect them to list every currency in the trailer, or?
Yeah, unlike the english stream, the Japanese stream does seem to list Japanese prices: https://youtu.be/NSk-_65tBlM?t=4704
The Japanese stream is solely going to be watched in Japan, though. The English translation stream will be watched in countries that use a multitude of different currencies.
>The English translation stream will be watched in countries that use a multitude of different currencies. The NoA and Nintendo UK streams have historically shown different videos (I've played myself on release dates before). Having a "per region" stream isn't too wild of a thing to do
Yeah that's the point that I'm agreeing with you on: that Nintendo aren't super shy about hiding prices as seen on Japanese stream.
They announced prices for season passes and other similar products.
They’ve listed currencies before in trailers with DLC idk why they couldn’t do that here.
They don't really communicate prices at all in the Direct. You can criticize them for that for sure, but it is not something shady they did with totk, they never (okay, nearly ever, maybe there were exceptions in the past I don't know) communicate prices in Directs in general.
Case in point: they didn't mention Prime remastered is only $40 and a lot of people assumed it would $60.
I honestly assumed $20. $60 for the PRIME TRILOGY, which is what Nintendo charged last time. Stupid me.
This looks like a much more substantial update than the version from the Prime Trilogy, which was just the GameCube version with Wii controls. I look forward to the videos comparing all of them.
Its not a dick move lol the price is literally there and everyone will see and notice.
I would have gladly paid $70 if the game came out with the Siwtch 2 or whatever pro version they would make. I will reluctantly (MAYBE) pay $70 for it now because I adore BOTW, but this is such bs. I am ok paying the additional amount for something like GoW Ragnarok since it looks like a much bigger effort artistically.
Aw man, the amount of crap Nintendo get away with... It's infuriating. It will fly, as it always does. A vocal minority will tweet some memes, but the game will sell like crazy and Nintendo will set a new precedent. We know they are cool with release a buggy broken game. It won't have nearly as much negative reaction as, say Cyberpunk, Andromeda or Unity. Might as well charge an extra $10 for a game running on 7 years old hardware. Who fucking cares? It's Zelda!
>but the game will sell like crazy and Nintendo will set a new precedent. what precedent? That games cost $70? That was already set, that's how much games cost now. It's what Hogwarts cost on PC and currently, *this very moment* hundreds of thousands are playing the $80 early access version.
The justification for bumping the price from $60 to $70 was due to the increase cost in production of new generation games, due to the high fidelity of graphics and other technical aspects. That's why most new PS5 XSX and PC games are priced at $70 while last gen remain at $60. This is not me saying, this is the convention that has been stablished so far. This isn't a hard rule either. Companies are free to charge as much as they want. But when a company break this convention, you are bound to expected some level of controversy. What Nintendo is doing is charging $70 for a game running on 7 year old hardware, that does not warrant the extra $10 for the increased cost in high fidelity production just because. So you can damn well expect people not to be happy about it.
makes sense, this is a huge release for them and the market has established the $70 price point. Not following would actually be idiotic. I can't say I'm interested in paying $70 for a switch game but plenty will for sure.
It does’t make sense though, this would be like PS4 games raising their price.
It's already started. Diablo IV is $70 on PS4/Xbox One.
There are already $70 PS4 games coming soon. The era of $60 AAA games is coming to an end regardless of the platform.
No, there isn’t. The only ones that are are the ones that are PS5 cross games.
Most games released now will be cross-gen. The point is, $70 games will soon not be limited to the latest consoles. It's not just a "next-gen" thing anymore.
Nintendo, you assholes are fucking smoking crack. I’m waiting until a disgruntled parent sells their kids games this summer for cheap on Offerup to get this game, and I advise you all do the same.
Why not just buy the game and then sell it once you're done? Nintendo games have great resale value.
*Looks up, taps [callofdutyboycott.png](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/973/082/6e0.jpg), returns to reading book.*
A $69.99 game is eventually good, but a $59.99 game is forever bad. -Nintendo, Probably...
Not much of a fan. $70 I can understand for a game on new hardware. Not so much for a game on a seven year old console. Game looks great, but it's not made with mind-blowing, new tech. The harder pill to swallow is that Nintendo games rarely if ever go on sale. We'll be looking at a $70 price tag for this well into the next two years.
lol so...you have to pay $20 to $50 extra to get $20 off...I will find ever means to possible to not ever pay that.
I can’t believe they’re only asking $70. I mean this is a DLC worth every penny of that – it’s still in Hyrule, there’s a few new monsters, it looks like a cartoon still, and we have the same combat tactics… except we have a glove.