Leave them alone🤬🤬🤬

[u/Yolo065]

[u/Tortue2006]

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.

[u/Merfen → u/Tortue2006]

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?

[u/neromonero → u/Merfen]

Found one

[u/thesweet677 → u/neromonero]

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

[u/withadancenumber → u/thesweet677]

Acknowledging inflation while ignoring volume.

[u/superbabe69 → u/withadancenumber]

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

[u/Danz- → u/superbabe69]

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

[u/ipm1234 → u/Danz-]

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.

[u/Danz- → u/ipm1234]

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?

[u/mmf9194 → u/Danz-]

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?

[u/Danz- → u/mmf9194]

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?

[u/Reapper97 → u/superbabe69]

Sales have increased far more than dev cost

[u/Chromatt0 → u/withadancenumber]

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.

[u/tapo → u/withadancenumber]

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.

[u/tapo → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/tapo → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/tapo → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Excellent_Egg5882 → u/withadancenumber]

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