Not so much defense, more like "uhh, yeah, things cost money, inflation exists, welcome to the real world", and I can't disagree honestly. People gotta use an inflation calculator on old games.
This meme does have real "too late, I drew you as the soy cuck and myself as the chad!" energy.
Exactly. People act as if "Retail price at launch for major AAA flagship game" is the ONLY price. That's absurd.
That *USED* to the case. Just look at any catalog or whatever from the 80s and early 90s and you'll see that virtually all games were 35-70 dollars. Anything other than that was piracy. Of course, this was because the market was in its infancy.
"Just wait 6 months or a year and it'll be at least 50% off" is the norm these days for *MOST* games. In the past that was incomprehensible.
Math isn't opinion-based. OVERALL... as a hobby... gaming has never been cheaper.
Definitely. The only "defense" I've seen is people reminding others that inflation exists and how many nes and snes games were $90+.Ā
Hell, there is even a Simpsons clip from 30 years ago where Marge refuses to buy Bonestorm for Bart, citing how new games cost "upwards of ninety dollars"
"You reminded me inflation is real! Stop defending a billion dollar company. Ya'll are so brainwashed and cannot think for yourselves" - Guy who spent hundreds of hours online trying to tell people they were wrong for liking Tears of the Kingdom.
Of course, the solution for this new generation of gamers is to release the game for $30, then make a killing on in game transactions they are stupid enough to make. Then use the money from those transactions to actually finish the buggy game they releasedĀ
I assume along with the āThere a no good games todayā crowd itās mainly people too young to remember the snes and the days before YouTube(rs) existed.
I only bought a switch last year because was travelling and havenāt had a Nintendo since the N64 - but I was under the impression Nintendo still puts out quality, finished products.
I mean at least Iāve never heard of the Nintendo equivalent of Anthem, Cyberpunk or Concord.
And Iām part of the crowd that only buys games on discount when itās packaged with DLC and the bugs have been fixed.
"Today they release half-finished games full of bugs and then spend years patching them to be playable!"
Yeah and 20 years ago they released half-finished games full of bugs and then didn't do shit to fix them. Because without the internet being as pervasive as it is now, they could sell out the game before word got around that it was shitty and not worth buying. Some of the most beloved games from that time are horrendously broken.
Doesn't make it ok for studios to release unfinished garbage today just because they can patch it to playable later. Just saying it was often shitty back then, too. Nintendo charging too much for their games isn't their fault, it's the fault of the political party that's been fighting against unions and raising the minimum wage and has been crashing the economy once a decade at least since I've been alive. Nothing wrong with pointing out to Nintendo that we can't afford these prices, but be mad at the people who are making wages stagnate.
I dont believe I said anything like that? Unless you were adding to my comment ofc then nvm.
In fact Iām personally glad patching exists, for the reason you state - Iām usually the person questioning the very idea of āgood old daysā without bugs.
My point was comparatively Nintendo seem (the context of my comment was asking for evidence to the contrary) to be putting out āqualityā games and maybe thatās partly because they always charge full price and donāt feel the need to rush things out and add microtransactions.
Sorry, I was agreeing with you and making a jab at the same people you were, because the same people who say "no good games today" are the ones complaining about buggy releases as if that's new. Apologies that I wasn't clear that we're on the same side š
Also, comparatively, itās still one of the cheapest forms of entertainment. You buy a movie ticket and it costs you $25-30 for an hour or two of entertainment. I bought BG3 for $80 and have 400 hours on it (so far) and will very much have more on it. That averages out to 20 cents for an hour of entertainment. Even factoring in a need for a console, $400-500 spread out over thousands of hours ends up being a cheap investment.
Iām not defending Nintendo, they do lots of shady stuff and their controllers are shittily made these days. But the price of games these days isnāt entirely outrageous.
This is something I run into with a lot of hobbies. Wanna play Warhammer 40k? Prepare to pay at least $500 for miniatures (even if you're 3d printing, still need to buy that printer). Wanna do historical swordfighting? Prepare to pay $1k for protective gear and a sword. I know people who like shooting and I'm just like, I already paid for a sword and I don't need to pay $20 to reload it. Hell, even in video gaming there's people who've dropped hundreds of dollars on gatcha games.
At the end of the day it's capitalism and it's economics. Companies will charge the price that will make them the most amount of money, if they charge less than that then scalpers will buy up their stock and resell at the 'correct' price, if they accidentally charge too much then they'll eventually be forced to bring prices back down, or go out of business.
They no longer have to make and ship cartridges to distribute them. They just let you download said game. The margins are insanely large. Add in they not longer subsidize consoles and release a new one every few years... yea. also the technology isn't improving that much as we have reached a pretty big limit on screen size etc. No more big innovation to make graphics look perfect- it is just art style now and most of the games reuse what works.
The hardware margins are insanely large, but how can you calculate the software costs? Software engineers aint cheap. Iām not defending Iām just understanding that its not free to sell video games. Iām not buying an 80$ game.
80$ likely pays for around an hour of one engineers time, if that
I swear Iām not trying to justify this but youre not making a great argument, i can understand 1 million man-hours: building the game engine for a new console, building an expansive video game, polishing it, debugging and playtesting, marketing. I can see it. Nintendo doesnt release unfinished video games.
They do. Looked it up for the discussions around this topic. Odyssey was around 50-100mil budget. The Switch Zeldas were apparently 100-150mil. Miyamoto once said, they'd need to sell at least 2mil copies to even make it out the red (x60-70$) with BotW. And that money needs to be spent before a single copy gets sold. Generally, we're talking $15'000 a month per developer on your staff + marketing + admin etc.
Two million sales are still at indie range nowadays, AAA games get multiple times more than that, AC Odyssey sold 14 million and it wasn't that big of a hit.
Odyssey sold 14 million and it wasn't that big of a hit.
Super Mario Odyssey 29 million
That doesn't make sense, which one is it? My point was, that by his statement, we can estimate what the general ballpark of development cost was for those games, despite Nintendo being very secretive about their development cost in general. Didn't try to say anything about successfulness
we can estimate what the general ballpark of development cost was for those games, despite Nintendo being very secretive about their development cost in general.
It is nowhere near the profit they make, my man, they made 1.7 BILLIONS from Super Mario Odyssey alone, that's 10x what Cyberpunk 2077 cost to develop; there's a reason they have been having record profits for years now.
I really want to see what "margin" you are specifically thinking of.
AAA game dev is one of the highest risk industries in the world. Games generate losses constantly. 2023 and 24 saw about 50'000 layoffs across the industry. With 1500 more in 2025.
One of the biggest game publishers in the world is on the brink of shuttering.
So please, be specific. What margins?
Edit: Go figure, the person I responded to mentioned nothing about "margins" and instead claimed "We have better tools, AI and Unreal Engine so games are easy and cheap to make now". What a fucking moron.
Mario Kart World is absolutely not a high risk release.
Mario Kart 8 made about 3 billion dollars on an estimated 100 million dollar budget.
Following your logic Mario Kart World should cost less than the average game, when it's actually more expensive than a riskier game they're releasing (Donkey Kong Banaza). The most recent Mario Kart (Tour) was also free to play.
Wouldn't it be sensible to put the higher price on the sure thing than on the game that seems far riskier? People WILL pay for Mario Kart. They won't pay a higher price for a 3D Donkey Kong.
Microsoft and Sony's gaming divisions are among their smallest, and Nintendo's valuation is so low that Microsoft wanted to acquire them before buying Activision.
Which shows you how small the biggest games companies are.
AAA game dev is one of the highest risk industries in the world
Do you have a source for that?
The fact that some businesses make poor decisions is not a reflection of an industry. It doesn't make the industry "high risk" if they are bad at doing business.
The companies which take record profits are doing layoffs no less than companies which sabotaged their bottom line with poor investments.
2023 and 24 saw about 50'000 layoffs across the industry. With 1500 more in 2025.
Corporations are just as likely to lay people off when they're making record profits. The more executives and shareholders are involved, the more likely that a major layoff will happen. Board of directors need their new yachts.
Watched it happen at companies like Blizzard for decades now. They'd hit a new record for revenue and still lay off hundreds of people from dev teams and customer service.
EDIT: Search the internet for something like blizzard record profit layoffs. You will see a VARIETY of articles from the 2010s and 2020s talking about each of the years where Blizz hit new records for profit and profit margins, and still laid off hundreds of people at a time.
Yes there were you dumbass, layoff happened because ceos during the pandemic thought that the gaming/streaming boom would last forever, so they recruted a shit ton of people that are now costing them since gaming has regressed to usual levels of play, Multiple Gaming companies have recorded their best financial year of all-time last year. Youāre an idiot if you really think that
Nintendo doesnt reveal their development costs but their most expensive is breath of the wild, estimated to have cost 60-70 million USD
It sold 32 million units so at ~ 3$ per game they'd make money of a digital copy. There are obv some more costs like servers and a cut when sold through other stores and such but at 60 USD they obv made a shit ton of profits
Their other games mostly cost way less to make (e.g. mario kart, pokemon etc) while selling 67 million and 26 million respectively
The layoffs happened regardless of how much money the companies made, some of them had record profits, the main issue is the unpredictability of how successful a game will be, thats not an issue with Nintendos top franchises though
No. Because it sounds like he's only ever been an employee.
That said, the person he's replying to is also completely wrong. It's a very high risk industry. But it's also a huge spread and can easily have wide margins. So much dev cost gets flushed away with incompetent management and budgeting, and trying to tie that to margins and risk is silly.
It depends, as it always does, with the studio, its circumstances, and its funding methods. But to apply that to Nintendo here is nonsense. Nintendo isn't upping the price to the mean due to inflation. It's leading the mean simply because it can.
Losses due to better tools making game development easier. It wasn't unique to the gaming sector- everywhere the tech industry experienced layoffs. Things are getting better automated. Nintendo for 100% sure isn't struggling when even their bad games sell so well.
Edit: Lol guy posted and blocked, somehow thinks software development is a continuous process of reinventing the wheel. Libraries get more features, tools are made to make things easier. Whether a company reinvests that time into adding new features is up to the company, but things are getting more and more automated. Software engineers check google before creating something from the ground up.
better automated. Nintendo for 100% sure isn't struggling when even their bad games sell so well.
Yes, because they are a low risk company that strives on giving you a product you will enjoy. That's the reason why the switch beat the other consoles. Becuase if you like Nintendo games you know for sure you'll get a product you're happy with.
Whether a company reinvests that time into adding new features is up to the company, but things are getting more and more automated. Software engineers check google before creating something from the ground up.
You mean like Unreal engine going from 1-5? So, yes, they are reinventing the wheel. You're so wrong on so many accounts that I don't understand how you think you're even remotely correct.
Game development is not easier, and definitely not automated in the slightest.
In fact, methodology has only become harder over the last decade. Every new AI or procedural tool baked into programs like Painter3D, Houdini or Zbrush is half useful on implementation, and you have to learn 5 new optimization techniques to stay ahead.
Please take your head out your ass and clean the shit out of your eyes.
around fifteen to twenty people worked on Mario Kart 64, and adjusted to inflation it would cost right around $80 in todays money... how many people do you think worked on mario kart world?
They are no longer writing their own engines or coding said games in assembly.
Depending on the game, Nintendo do use in house engines. It's been decades since anyone wrote anything in assembly. You really sound like you know a little and are acting like that means you know a lot.
Nintendo most likely still write their own engines. And their games were only coded in assembly back when coding in assembly was easy. Writing 16/8bit assembly isnt some amazing ability, its just tedious. You can explain it to a university student in like 4 classes.
Sure, but they share them for all their games and output a ton of games. Writing assembly isn't easy. It is anything but - fewer tools doesn't mean the job is simpler. Things get complex quick when you are writing for specific hardware that may or may not change.
They also add far more content to games than back when they were written in assembly. The time to develop games is much higher now, and that's with larger development teams.
Licensing the engine isn't that much of a cost-saver. The budgets and the up-from investment requirements have only gotten bigger. GTA 6 will literally cost over a billion to make
Yes, they'll definitely make a profit, but the barrier to entry is MASSIVELY bigger than any other entertainment industry.
Development costs are higher than ever. With the progression of technology, it takes more time and effort to take advantage of that extra power. This is especially true with Nintendo games who are specifically known for putting a "Nintendo polish" on all of their games. That polish doesn't come cheap. And this is despite their consoles being less powerful than other modern consoles, meaning they have to put additional resources into overcoming technological obstacles.
Now add in inflation and wage increases (in Japan where these games are being developed) into the equation and you start understanding why they need to raise prices on their games.
We have hit a pretty big soft cap in regards to game technology. Monitors only get so big. This isn't like the rush in the 2000's where every game had to push graphics boundaries to make sales. We have been at that point for a few years now. There is little desire or use in 8k+ monitors outside marketing. You just can't see it really unless said monitor is massive. Game engines are rented vs developed for the game by the studio.
meanwhile 1 dude made stardew valley. pretty obvious u can make games that sell for less and then use the income to fund big games that are risky. or u can ignore that for ur shit argument defending huge companies making millions off u.
The production and distribution costs of those cartridges are pennies in the bucket compared to the actual development costs, there's a reason the switch to digital hasn't really impacted the cost of games meaningfully.
They no longer have to make and ship cartridges to distribute them. They just let you download said game.
Yeah, how do you think they've been able to keep games at historically low (adjusted for inflation) prices for so long without raising them? They've tried every trick in the book to stretch the $60-70 price tag for as long as they could, even as inflation creeps ever onward.
Back then the market wasn't so large that's why they were more expensive, more consumers menat lower prices. Now they just want to push the boundaries and make more money, idk how people can defend large companies like Nintendo at all.
Yes. They need to AND want to. Because theyāre a business. Their entire existence is to make money, not give cheap toys to people whining on the internet.
They have an obligation to their business and to grow their market and brand, lest they stagnate and decline. Thatās what businesses HAVE to do to survive. They arenāt worried about NEETs and their inability to not spend $20 extra on games they canāt stop themselves from buying.
its both. they're a business so they want more revenue. Countless luxury products have massive profit margins.
Being rich doesn't obligate them to give you cheap products. Lamborghini's net worth is in the billions, that doesn't mean they own you cheap luxury vehicles. Sony is worth 150 billion. They aren't obligated to sell you cheaper anything.
Do you want to have a conversation or are you just here to troll and ignore the point?
Asking this makes you more of a troll than me. You pretending to not get the most simple and basic concepts of business and finance makes you a troll. The fact that you're getting smug that you have to pay $20 extra for a toy makes you a troll.
They've been so profitable the past few years, what makes you think this is unsustainable?
Higher prices don't necessarily lead to higher revenues or profit either. We'll see how sustainable this new price is if people aren't buying enough games.
You can still be profitable and pricing can be unsustainable.
And everyone said the same thing when games went to 60$. People will still buy their games, including 90% of the shitposters here. Blame the all the consumers for the price.
Because inflation exists and isn't a fictional thing like half other redditors here like to pretend it is. You need to give your employees raises to combat CoL as well.
Their profits have increased in recent years. You can't just ignore that like the other half of redditors who act like they understand the economy but actually are clueless.
Tell me how 60$ isn't sustainable.
They would probably still make a shit load of profit.
These price increases are just ridiculous.
If you just account for inflation, the games would cost around 75$ for physical games but wages don't grow with inflation so Nintendo will make even larger profits since they probably pay a shit wage to their workers so their development cost won't be that much higher than a few years ago.
Easy. Companies saw the cost of everything increase, so they increase the price of the product.
Youāre just insisting prices shouldnāt change and that video games should be the exception from every other industry. Inflation isnāt a 1 to 1 math equation. Games are more expensive than ever to make, and the teams making them are more massive than ever. Games are also more global than ever, and the cost of marketing, advertising and distributing to more countries costs more. All This one top of the growth of games sale slowing.
I get youāre annoyed that things cost more. But youāre wrong that it shouldnāt be happening. It is what it is. Itās a part of life and how the luxury products industry works. There isnāt some great evil being committed here.
Honestly, people just expect things to stay the same price forever?
And its funny, because most of these people in 2 months will buy the Switch 2 anyway. I mean look at PS5, they raised game prices, people complained, and then guess what? People bought them anyway
it's less defending the company and moreso expressing general annoyance at gamers who throw a fit everytime nintendo does a totally expected fuck up.
like there are people genuinely surprised that a console in 2025 is 450 bucks, and i'm not allowed to point fingers at them? nintendo fans are notorious for setting themselves up with horrid expectations and being upset when they're ultimately not met.
No one is saying itās a good thing, but crying about it constantly on the internet is really annoying. If $80 is too much, donāt buy the game. If you buy the game, then $80 was not too much. Itās really not that hard.
I'm honestly so so so bored of this. Like so bored. The thing is, most of the complaining is coming from people who have no interest in buying the game. It's just yet another example of the unfiltered Reddit gamer rage. Bored.
I think a lot of it is from teenagers who are going to buy the game anyway and really chafe at the extra $10. Also, Steam Deck guys who think there is a non-zero market of people cross-shopping a Switch 2 with a Steam Deck.
A lot of it is from young people who are relatively new to paying for their own stuff and DEFINITELY haven't been through any of the price increases before.
Anyone applying logic and numbers understands that, while annoying, it's perfectly reasonable.
It is same as people complaining, that there are no good/original movies anymore. Dude, shop around, so many great games that are dirt cheap. Hell, game pass is like one Nintendo game in a year and you have hundreds of games to chose from.
It's non Nintendo doing that, it's the general economy doing that. Be mad at the people screwing up the economy or the people not paying better wages. Video games are a luxury product that costs a ton to make. Yes it sucks when prices go up but it's not like Nintendo is just deciding to increase it for no reason. Inflation has been massive the past 5 years
It takes fewer hours of work for you to buy an $80n game in 2025 than it was to buy regularly priced games at almost any point in history. If anything, fewer people are priced out now.
Fuck Nintendo and their pricing as a whole of course, but this argument is ridiculous.
While no one likes prices going up, is an extra $20, or "3 games for the price of 4 on the switch 1", on a platform that costs $500 up front really pricing an entire class of people out of a hobby?
But we arent going to complain about something that is naturally going to happen. Inflation is a thing, its not surprising companies want to adjust for inflation. I am honestly surprised we havent seen MORE price hikes in gaming. Its a luxury they arent going to make it affordable to everyone
Development costs are not the same. Manufacturing costs may have gone down, but games in the mid 90s cost had far smaller, cheaper teams. Games today are like Hollywood movies.
GTA6 has what, a two billion budget? Game expectations are high. Even by inflation standards, they should be priced at around 130. Games used to be 70 when I was a kid. All this is is people who don't understand economics or the industry having a meltdown and then when you try correct them or explain some logic behind it they start foaming at the mouth about shills and bootlickers. You can't have a normal conversation any more. Everything is either you're with me or against me. Gamers are exhausting.
Wow that's crazy. If Wikipedia's page on the most expensive games to develop is anything near accurate, that puts GTA6 at twice as expensive as the next most expensive ever developed. Wonder how that cost compares to the cost of, say, porting Tropical Freeze to another system?
It's not people who don't understand economics. It's people who understand economics, and understand that gaming is the most profitable industry in the world, and understand that Nintendo stands at the top of that industry and does not actually need to raise prices.
What is this disingenuous take I keep seeing that people don't understand that inflation exists? That's such a ridiculous take. That's exactly why this is an issue. Everything is more expensive, and the companies that can handle it, like Nintendo, are also making their products more expensive. People simply don't want to spend money on only foodāthey like playing video games, so they're allowed to be upset that the greed of a corporation is making that harder.
Nintendo can handle the inflation. If this was some small indie dev, it would actually be fine, but that's not who it is. It's Nintendo.
It's not people who don't understand economics. It's people who understand economics, and understand that gaming is the most profitable industry in the world, and understand that Nintendo stands at the top of that industry and does not actually need to raise prices.
Aka you don't understand economics. "Need" has nothing to do with it. This is profit optimization.
Use your own logic for a second, Mario Kart did not cost 2b dollars yet it is still gonna be the most costly game of the generation so far ? Shy is the Company that has the lowest budget per AAA games gonna have the priciest games ? Why does Nintendo makes you pay for your own Internet via pair-pair connection ?
Itās so easy to brush over those question by saying āmuh economicsā and acting exactly like the people you describe.
It's stagnating since 2019, but before that it made a pretty high jump from 2014. Meanwhile, video games already cost $60 in 2014, so for someone with a median income, a $80 game is still as cheap today as a $60 game in 2014.
Now, for a truly rigorous comparison you would have to factor in all other expenses as well, because video games are a luxury item, while rent and food are not. Maybe someone else can look into those statistics?
I don't really think anyone is saying it doesn't suck for the consumer. It's not really Nintendo's fault that wages are stagnant. I personally would like for the price of games to be relative to how much time and effort goes into them. I'm fine with paying more for games that they take a few more years to make and polish.
And BG3 cost 60 dollars with the amount of time and care to create the game. I'll assure you, you will spend more time in bg3 than any other Nintendo game
Donāt bother getting into this discussion with Redditors. Ā The people who will engage with you are either NEETs living with their parents or single guys earning in the top 10% at their IT job. Ā Either way, you wonāt be talking to someone who engages with the economic realities of the world like an average person, and whatever position they are espousing will be 100% dictated by whatever particular brain-rotted polarized filter bubble theyāve been sorted into.Ā
paying 80 dollar for a high quality piece of media that hundreds, if not thousands of dedicated artist worked on for years is not that weird. I mean, furry commissions go by 100$+ and they are much less effort than a new mario kart. the issue is just that many AAA games are not worth 60 dollar, let alone 80. Nintendo is one of the few developers who can get away with this shit, because their games are (mostly) consistently good. pricing them that high leaves a bitter impression, even if the games are worth 80 bucks.
Keep in mind the switch 2 itself is going to be around half as expensive as the PS5 and actually have games. It's still scummy and greedy, but much less so than many people claim. Nintendo is a company. They want (and need) to make money.
And despite Nintendo online being a fucking joke (rip anyone trying to play the Duskbloods multiplayer), putting Gamecube games on the switch 2 is FUCKING based.
It's actually so crazy. You don't have to go far back either. If Mario Kart 8 was $60 in 2014, then inflation says it should be $80 in 2025.
Whether or not Nintendo scales their developer's salaries is another matter worth further research, but generally speaking, don't we want companies to be able to pay their developers well? Game companies get their money from games. If we as consumers expect to pay 2014 prices, then game companies can only afford to pay developers 2014 salaries.
Inflation doesn't say anything should be priced at anything. The company looks at various factors and decides on the cost. They can almost definitely sell these games at $60 and make a profit. I've never seen Nintendo's numbers but they're a multi billion dollar corporation. They would be fine.
Thatās not a good argument to make, thereās a lot of things I would want Nintendo to do but blindly paying in the hopes that they will do the good thing is the reason Elon Musk, Bezos and the whole Cabale are worth 17 trillion dollars and Amazon workers are having heart attack from stress in the warehouses.
I do agree and with the Switch 2 specs being close to PS4 Pro (which honestly is a huge upgrade from the OG Switch) the price is a bit high for my Canadian ass, but realistically I don't need it now. I may be getting it in a year or two later like the usual or near the end of the lifecycle as i did generations before the Switch.
Games that cost $60 back in 2005 would cost $120, I really don't care if big games cost $80 today.
That said... a lot of Nintendo games don't justify AAA pricing and they pretend a 4 year old game deserves release price. At least Sony/MS ran their greatest/platinum hits later in a game's cycle.
Games were 60 in the 2000s when a player base of 200,000 was incredibly high. A game selling a million now is considered anywhere from a "minor success" to "catastrophe".
It really is just greed. The consumer base is incredibly massive and definitely cam sustain a 60 price tag
Be that as it may, the cost of living is brutal right now and will only get worse with the coming recession. 80 bucks is a lot to ask of the latest Bing Bing Wahoo Kart under those circumstances. Any amount of money is too much to pay for their tech demo, but I digress. Whether or not it's more fair to the corporation is a pretty distant concern of mine when I'm crunching the total number of days I need to subsist on rice and beans to make the mortgage this month.
Distribution is negligible compared to the past. Gaming is also popular so their User base is much higher. The reason why games were at $60 even though they were more expensive in the past.
Companies can sell games at a reasonable price & make up more profit via number of sales.
think about how amny more copies they sell of games now, how many more dlc's/subscription services liek online are included now.
these companies are making WAAAAAAAAY more money in current times even adjusting for inflation, gaming was a very expensive hobby in the 90's, if u were a kid then like me u maybe had 3 or 4 games u got a year if u were in a well off family. now kids have 50 games on their ipad a month that make all the money from ads and in game currency.
if u wanna use the inflation argument pls think about more than the direct price comparisons because it isnt nearly that simple and all ur doing is giving greedy people and excuse to take more of ur money for no reason.
Problem is, you usually only see that increase for massive-budget AAA games that take years and years to develop. Mario Kart, as much as I love these games, is definitely not that.
If the other companies manage just fine on current normal prices, then Nintendo should be able to manage even better.
Exactly,
My income increased by 30% compared to 2017 due to inflation correction, so I don't care game prices have increased. Of course, cheaper is always better.
Back in the 80s we paid $50 in real, honest, gallon of gas < $1, 1985 cash for a tinny, blocky 8 bit nes game. I may be a cranky old head anymore but people expecting modern games to still cost $50 seems hilariously out of touch.
Yeah, and if an extra $10 is what it takes to get the kind of quality and innovation we saw back then Iāll gladly pay that. I really couldnāt care less if it upsets the same kinds of gamers who have been content with (in a way, demanding) the slop weāve been getting in recent years
Unpopular opinion The $450 price point for console seems reasonable, the steam deck is $400 for the cheapest model and the switch 2 has better specs. Comparing a handheld console to a PS5 price is a little disingenuous. That being said $80 for their first party games is insanely greedy. $70 is already overly pushing it for new games imo.
The standard of $60 games has been around for decades. I hate that the price is going up but if you check youtube, there have been think pieces saying "60 dollar games can't last forever" for years at this point.
Well, I would be fine if my money went into making games better, but everyone knows that CEOs get all the money so that price increase has nearly nothing to do with any of things you mentioned but a greed. Reminding you that some CEOs make 1000x more than average employee :)
In that case, you should be a massive Nintendo fan. They actually invest into making great games.
I feel like the cost of making these games is just much greater. Do you have any evidence that Nintendo's CEOs are just lining their pockets with these price hikes, or are we just assuming outrage?
The truth is, people who hyperfixate on one corporate product are more likely to defend its honor to the death, with low conception of life outside of their hobby.
Some gamers like to pretend that the world outside of gaming doesn't exist, because of the monumental shame they feel at not participating in it. Basic awareness of global events is like acid on their skin. It enrages them. I'm sure I'll get downvoted for even pointing this out.
Plenty of us still pay attention to the world and don't burst into flames. We fully understand why the price went up. The main difference is, we're not defending price hikes because we understand the mechanism and realize it's entirely bullshit.
Imo, it's less they're wrong and more, "why are you playing devil's advocate?"
These prices set a bad precedent more than anything, and I am 100% confident that if the market vote against it with their wallet, AAA devs would find some ways to keep shipping games at $70 USD.
This is assuming a very significant amount of people will only buy the game when it's $10 cheaper, and I cannot see that being the truth. People will approve of this with their wallet, I expect.
People gotta use an inflation calculator on old games.
I do. I also look at how the games industry has become the most profitable entertainment industry in the world and suddenly it makes no sense why they need an increase in base price too.
while inflation has increased, the average to low income wages have not increased as much as they should. on top of that, the increase in number of sales makes up for it, not to mention any sort of microtransactions.
even if we do take inflation into consideration, the new standard AAA price has headed towards $70, not $80.
485
u/Findict_52 23h ago
Not so much defense, more like "uhh, yeah, things cost money, inflation exists, welcome to the real world", and I can't disagree honestly. People gotta use an inflation calculator on old games.
This meme does have real "too late, I drew you as the soy cuck and myself as the chad!" energy.