r/memes 1d ago

Leave them alone🤬🤬🤬

Post image
69.9k Upvotes

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

394

u/Tortue2006 1d ago

I don’t have a problem with a higher price, although 80 bucks is quite a bit. I have a problem with salaries not going up as well.

85

u/Merfen 1d ago

I find it odd that people think games can just cost $60 forever, this is what we paid in the 90s for games, like at some point they were bound to raise with inflation. Did people expect to still be paying $60 in 2045 too?

-2

u/neromonero 1d ago

Found one

45

u/thesweet677 1d ago

It’s a miracle 60$ was the price for as long as it was, he’s not supporting this, he’s just acknowledging basic inflation. Games are expensive af to make

-6

u/withadancenumber 1d ago

Acknowledging inflation while ignoring volume.

23

u/superbabe69 1d ago

Acknowledging volume while ignoring development costs that are through the roof compared to 20 years ago

-4

u/Danz- 1d ago

Acknowledging development costs while ignoring that they are literally making a profit at $60 priced games

6

u/ipm1234 1d ago

How can you acknowledge the rising development costs for bigger and better looking games and not see how that isnt sustainable. They are making a (small) profit on 60 dollar games now, they cant keep doing that long term.

-4

u/Danz- 1d ago

Dude they developed this game with the money from selling $60 games. The game IS developed. Whatever profit they're making right now was enough to develop this better looking game. Or do you think they will pay their developers after it sells?

8

u/mmf9194 1d ago

Whatever profit they're making right now was enough to develop this better looking game.

Or do you think they will pay their developers after it sells?

So after it sells they don't need to make anything more and can close up shop?

-1

u/Danz- 1d ago

No, of course not. And from this projection is where they adjust their future prices. But acting like this development is crippling them for not pricing the game at $80 is absurd when they made billions in profit while developing it and selling $60 games.

If they made it. Selling stuff at $60 AND made a profit, how is a 33% increase in what is JUST profit at this point, not greed?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Reapper97 1d ago

Sales have increased far more than dev cost

3

u/Chromatt0 1d ago

So you keep costs low for a higher volume, then each game is a gamble. Following Nintendo ads so much dlc that essentially becomes call of duty. Ergo $60 with a bimonthly $30 battle pass. From a corpo perspective this could make more, but from a dev? Nah man that's hell, Nintendo makes games and not services primarily.

5

u/tapo 1d ago

The market for console games isn't growing though, the PS2 has sold 10 million more units than the Switch and that system is 24 years old.

3

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

9

u/tapo 1d ago

Yes, mobile games with microtransactions are where the money is. That's not Nintendo's business, and I hope it never is.

2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/tapo 1d ago

It's not their core business, not developed by them (it's by DeNa) and they've been winding it down. They only have three mobile games and they just turned Pocket Camp into a pay-to-own.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/tapo 1d ago

I should have phrased it as such, Nintendo's business is in the traditional console market and not focused on mobile games. That was always a partnership and they've stopped investing in them. I don't think any of their mobile games are actively developed anymore.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Excellent_Egg5882 1d ago

Sales volumes going up just means they have more room to increase prices.

20

u/Mist3rbl0nd3 1d ago

Found one what? Someone that understands $60 30 years ago isn’t worth as much as $60 now?

4

u/Danz- 1d ago

This conversation is so stupid since switch games are $60 and they are making a profit right now. Whether it's because of volume or saving in distribution.... It's working, they are making money right now.

6

u/Scheswalla 1d ago

More sophisticated games require more development time and more expensive hardware.

6

u/Danz- 1d ago

They. Are. Making. A. Profit. Breath of the wild was wildly more sophisticated than skyward sword. Did they lose money there? Do you know for a fact that World didn't reuse some of MK8D's code? You don't, neither do I, would be weird if they didn't... But we don't know. All we know is the switch, right now, with sophisticated games at $60, is making an insane profit. That's it. Sure the switch 2 console can be more expensive but justifying $80 games when they're making a profit is absurd. Even more so since they're making a profit while developing it. Or do you think they will pay their devs after the game sells?

Last I checked Nintendo didn't go broke from developing this game, already developed, sustained from the sales of other games that cost $60. This makes no sense whatsoever

4

u/ZeeDarkSoul 1d ago

Just because they are making profit (Which you in reality dont know that 100%) Doesnt mean it is a huge profit, and it also still doesnt change, that EVENTUALLY, that development cost is going to catch up. It wasnt going to stay that way forever

This is also ignoring the fact that these switch 2 games probably took a higher development cost, then what switch 1 games cost. We are talking about a whole new console, that has way better performance.

It would be like comparing Xbox 360 game costs, to current gen Xbox game costs.

0

u/Danz- 1d ago

I do know... We do know. They release financial statements. If it were to catch up it wouldn't be after release... That's stupid. Again, they developed it while not selling it at $80 and didn't go in the red, we know they are making a profit right now while developing...

This is either stupid or clearly not in good faith, good day.

1

u/Mist3rbl0nd3 1d ago

They should hire your to analyze their P&Ls, and marketing research. You clearly have your pulse on this.

1

u/Danz- 1d ago

As opposed to you? I'm not saying I'm an analyst, you are. All I'm saying is the fact that they are making money right now. Developing this "super advanced" or whatever game, right now, paying for that development right now and still making billions in profit. That is a fact.

But of course you can't answer that so you just state something unrelated. Which actually might make you a better candidate for this position I guess

0

u/Mist3rbl0nd3 1d ago

No, I’m not the one claiming they’re doing business wrong. Neither am I defending it, but you’re acting like you have their business model in your back pocket.

0

u/Danz- 1d ago

Not defending it

k

12

u/nightfox5523 1d ago

Found one

Someone with a functioning brain on reddit?

Yeah I know it's a pretty rare sight these days

14

u/Merfen 1d ago

If you say so, sure, but can you answer when games should start costing more than $60? Do you think they should stay the same price for eternity?

-7

u/Taswelltoo 1d ago

Do you think a company with 11 billion in cash reserves are hurting so bad they need to increase prices by 25% to account for inflation?

11

u/pananana1 1d ago

that isn't how pricing things work

you're saying Nintendo should start willingly burning through cash reserves so that they can keep prices at $60 until they run out of cash reserves and then they would raise it up?

-5

u/S4Waccount 1d ago

They wouldn't be burning through any reserves. The whole point as if they could sell these games at a reasonable price and still be making a reasonable profit. Reasonable profits don't pay for a second or third vacation home or yacht though.

2

u/pananana1 1d ago

no, reasonable profits do not matter at all to a public company. every quarter they have to make more profit than the last quarter. it's why they all go to shit.

1

u/S4Waccount 1d ago

exactly, it's not a good thing. So why is everyone in here gargling Nintendo's balls like it's inevitable? Its a choice they are making, not something they have to do or force going bankrupt.

2

u/pananana1 1d ago

no one is gargling their balls, i'm just saying your arguments don't make sense

for instance, they aren't doing it for a yacht. they're doing it because it's literally what they have to do as a public company.

-3

u/Taswelltoo 1d ago

Besides the fact that consoles not games mind you, have historically been sold at a lost, doesn't Nintendo make almost pure profit from their games because thy're first party?

Why are you acting like a company that made more profit in their last generation then they did from the 1980's until 2016 combined would be in trouble for pricing their games a bit more reasonably?

5

u/pananana1 1d ago

because, again, they have to do whatever they can to make more money than they did last quarter. that is what a public company is.

-1

u/Taswelltoo 1d ago

I mean that's great and all but doesn't address what I was saying to the person I was replying to. They aren't doing this because they aren't making money, or because inflation is keeping them from profit. Keeping prices where they are also wouldn't result in them "burning through cash reserves" like you suggested either. Like, I know companies are greedy I don't exist under a rock, but to act like they've been keeping prices low out of the goodness of their heart for so long or that unless they do they won't make money or start to lose money as you suggested is just silly.

2

u/pananana1 1d ago

inflation is keeping them from profit

inflation does effect what i'm talking about

and again they have to make more money than last quarter. including with inflation.

it obviously sucks but i'm saying the logical arguments used here aren't correct.

5

u/superbabe69 1d ago

Firstly, the new console can do 4K/60 so you will see game budgets increase to match the power of the system as developers find they can really pretty up their games now.

Secondly, high cash reserves is how Japanese companies operate. The country has about $4.8 trillion tied up in corporate cash reserves.

The businesses are extremely conservative with cash and make sure they have shitloads available in the event of a downturn in business.

Nintendo holding $9 billion in cash is not the equivalent of an American company doing so.

-1

u/Taswelltoo 1d ago

Oh boy 4k/60fps! On a handheld console. That almost certainly can't run anything at 4k unless docked and even then good luck because it's running on a modified tablet.

Why are you so okay with Nintendo charging next gen prices for last gen (graphics wise) games?

4

u/superbabe69 1d ago

They literally showed 4K/60 modes for games in the Direct.

-1

u/Taswelltoo 1d ago

Bro even if they showed games running at 4k/60fps flawlessly for every game, I've been doing that on my PC since 2017. The games will not have cutting edge graphics and I have to ask again, why are you so okay with being charged next gen prices for last gen games? Like they're hyping HDR you can't be serious with this

3

u/superbabe69 1d ago

Because even on a relatively average income for my country, the prices are still affordable to me and will provide more entertainment per hour than most forms of entertainment?

Not everyone is you.

0

u/Taswelltoo 1d ago

Oh you're cool with being taken advantage of as long as you can afford it, I mean that's certainly a take that's for sure

2

u/superbabe69 1d ago

I am comfortable spending money on luxury goods at a rate that I can afford and is worth the expense to me, yes. People will spend $50,000 on a car, but an extra $20 on a game is too much to bear?

If you don’t like the price or can’t afford it, vote with your wallet and don’t buy it.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/PBR_King 1d ago

I'll gladly pay $80 for Mario Kart which I will play for years to come. I wouldn't pay $30 for a new assassins creed game or whatever looter/hero shooter dogshit is fotm.