After the Wii, I sword that I was never going to buy another console just to play Zelda. I eventually got a Switch to play Breath of the Wild and basically nothing else (I owned a total of 4 Switch games). When they sued the shit out of the Yuzu people, I decided it was time to finally live up to the promise I had made. I gave the Switch, which I hadn’t touched in years, to a friend to use as a gift for his kids and committed to never giving Nintendo another penny.
I’ll reevaluate that stance if they ever make significant changes to their practices.
The first and only console I bought was the original Wii. Games were expensive so I did not have many. I managed to install a few emulators and use it for older console emulation.
After some years they started pulling the plug on the online services. That’s when I decided I would never buy another console again. I will not feed any more walled gardens. I have more games than I can play on my PC, a lot of them are DRM free.
One of the issues I have with the new open-world style Zelda games is that they don’t have replay value. After finishing each once (which takes a lot of time), I can’t actually imagine wanting to go back and play them again. So yeah, Nintendo can charge what they want and it isn’t very appealing regardless. Increased resolution isn’t going to change the experience.
Increased resolution probably wouldn’t make a difference, but keeping the framerate at a steady 30 (or even better 60) would make a noticeable difference. At least it did when I played it on PC
I replay OoT and MM at least once a year. I can see myself replaying these new Zelda games at some point and enjoying them, but I won’t likely pay $90 for the privilege.
Interestingly I’d say the complete opposite: BotW was my fave and I feel I could replay it in quite a different style (e.g. trying to beat it without any dungeons, trying to 100% it), whereas the others are all very linear and my only option is to play it again in the same way.
(Obviously I don’t need to pay any additional money to do either though!)
They really wouldn’t. They would have to triple or quadruple sales to take that sort of a hit. As it stands it’s one of the best selling games of all time already, basically everyone interested in it already owns it.
Financially, they made the right decision. As annoying as it is from the consumer side.
That assumes people actually buy it though. Everyone already has this game, so I would expect most of the sales to come from the upgrade pack and not the $90 switch 2 edition. Nintendo usually makes bank by selling old games at full price with a generational console gap.
Tons of the full price successful “remasters” on Switch were Wii games which people no longer used, and Wii U games which no one originally bought.
On the other hand, the last time I didn’t see Nintendo make bank on literally zero effort was never, so I’m not that hopeful that people won’t just shill out for this scam too.
I guess that would be the case if you bought it, beat it and sold it, but most people in that scenario would already own it and then they would just buy the upgrade pack. This $90 option is only for people who don’t own the game in any form yet.
The idea that any significant contingent of people would not own it in any form, then suddenly want to play it on Switch 2 but would balk at the asking price seems unlikely, certainly not enough to cut the price in half.
If they wanted a cheaper option they could always just buy a used Switch copy and then just buy the upgrade pack. I would prefer cheaper Nintendo games too but the reality is this won’t cost them that many sales.
You’re literally not their market. That’s why so much of what they focus on are digital only sales, consoles, deals and schemes. They want buy once at full price, never resell.
I agree with your first statement, but disagree with the rest. I am not their target market. I enjoy playing their games, but primarily because I am spending time with the kids as I do. Not many of their games are targeted to my demographic.
I disagree that they focus only on digital. Every single Nintendo game comes out on a physical chip. And sales on digital copies are rare and minor (30% off maybe). It is often cheaper to get a physical copy on sale cheaper than digital. And you can then sell it / buy it second-hand. I’ve read that with Switch 2, even the digital codes can be transferred to a new owner. Nintendo for all their faults have never forced you to lock in a digital library you can never resell.
Steam is not free. Steam is 30% cut to businesses.
Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft offload their costs via yearly subscription costs as well as developers paying a protection fee to launch on their platform. Steam just has the highest protection money scheme. You wouldn’t want anything to happen to the games you’re publishing through them, would you?
I, his inheritor, am sorry to inform you that GabeN has passed. I’ve realized that I want an even larger pile of money, and it’s come to my attention that you aren’t paying for us to maintain your account.
You have 30 days to download your content or subscribe to Steam Plus at a cheap $X9.99/mo to avoid account deletion.
Why would they? Not saying it’s right, but there’s literally zero motivation for them to focus on people who can’t buy their products. They are a luxury good.
They are a company who exists to make money, not entertain us, despite that being what they say (in order to sell more). Them, and ever other for profit company in the world.
You own the game on switch and already have the dlc so pay nothing unless you want to pay $10 or have the switch online subscription for the switch 2 edition if you want the enhancements. For a total of $0-10 depending on your choice
You own the game but dont have the dlc so pay $20 for that and then $10 for the switch 2 version unless you have the subscription for a total of $20-30 depending on your choice.
You dont own the game so you buy the switch 2 version for $70 and the dlc for $20 for a total of $90.
This is not the same as the $90 game lie thats being told, but it is painted that way. To get clicks.
Paying $70 for a game and then paying more for an expansion is nothing even close to new. For example, Destiny 2 is free but if you want the DLC its gonna cost you between $150 and $270 depending on when you buy it as there are sometimes deals on.
Breath of the Wild is 8 years old at this point. Asking $70 for that is pretty egregious in my opinion. Maybe for TotK that’d be more acceptable but for BotW I think it’s a very steep price. Especially given that it’s common that rereleases usually include dlcs by default.
I’d expected $60 for the full package, not $90, given that the amount of development work was likely pretty low (the game was finished years ago after all). So 50% higher than expected.
The SM64+Sunshine+Galaxy bundle game was $30, for comparison. That’s three full games that they needed to put in effort for to run on the Switch.
Absolutely fair. An 8 year old game should not cost $90 all in.
I dont dispute that. I just think the article is misleading as there is a lot of talk about $90 switch 2 games, which turned out not to be true, and it creates anger that is misplaced. Even if the reality isn’t far from that lie.
I do, however, think it’s an interesting thought experiment to come at it from another angle.
Imagine the article was “8 year old AAA game and DLC at a huge discount” and the article said things like:
breath of the wild was ahead of its time on release
the graphics still look great thanks to the cell shading and art style
unique gameplay elements and a modern feeling combat system
vast open world with expansive storyline
on par with modern games
currently only $50 on this deal, a bargain considering everything you get for that price
From this point of view i think you would agree that anyone would argue its worth more than $50 and that its a great deal despite being 8 years old.
Nintendo games should definitely come down in price over time, but the point is its just so easy to spin something however you want if you use the right words.
IDK how to feel about rising video game prices. On the one hand, prices were stagnant for decades. On the other hand, companies can sell far more copies of games than they could back in the 1980s and 1990s. The cost of games is all in the development. The more you sell, the cheaper the price can be. They cost next to nothing to package and distribute (or are distributed digitally.)
On one hand, games are a lot more complex and expansive than they were back in the day. On the other, game devs now have tools the creators of old couldn’t even dream of. No one is hand coding the next Mario game is assembly.
There’s a lot of variables here. And it’s really just hard to make a fair judgment about it.
In many ways I think rising prices could be great, but in reality, they won’t be. With the technology available today, we could have even cooler games than we do, and more games, and more great games. We could have more diverse and experimental games. It would be lovely if solo indie developers were able to make a living from making great games, rather than basically needing to chase a dream akin to getting drafted into the NBA. Game developers are seriously underpaid, it would be great if they got paid as much as other software developers, especially since their work is equally complex and usually more stressful.
In reality, rising game prices will not help with any of those things, and will just make the C-suite richer. The one silver lining is that this may allow small indies to start charging a more livable realistic price for their games.
Everybody RRRREEEEEEEEEE’s about Nintendo, but Kingdom come deliverance II released at $90 for the base game and I fucking LOVE Kingdom come deliverance, I wasn’t paying that shit. 2 months later, I got the gold edition or whatever for $80. (PS5) I am very happy with the purchase. Looking forward for the DLC lol.
I run a simple calculation in my mind, a movie costs~15$ and lasts for a few hours. If a game i’m buying has a good chance of beating that ratio, i’ll buy it.
tweaktown.com
Najstarsze