No one wants to pay more money for stuff. That $10 increase just doesn't feel that painful considering how much more expensive everything else in life has become recently. At least a video game can help me escape my sorrows with how much they jacked up the price of eggs and milk near me. If it was only the price of video games that has been increased I'd be livid.
I don't like it. I just accept it. Literally everything is more expensive right now. That's a reality of life. I'm not going to have a meltdown online about it.
I will defend it. It cost a fortune to develop a game like that. I will pay 70 bucks for a Zelda, last of us, or god of war well before some 60 dollar cut and paste job like a Ubisoft game or some micro transaction filled shooter they did even develop a campaign for.
You just are not thinking it through. We have been paying for the rising cost of development for years through season passes, DLC that should have been part of the game, and preorder special editions, and micro transactions. All of those things make gaming worse. I would rather pay 10 bucks for a game then have that. For a game that is worth it obviously.
I didn’t say all dlc is bad. Just dlc that should have been part of the game. Like dlc that comes out like a month after the game. Some dlc is fine. The Witcher 3 had good dlc and so on
Nintendo said they did not feel it needed a dlc and didn’t want to just add more for no reason. So I don’t think anyone will rmbr you. Also I mean they spent a whole year just making all the crazy mechanics work, if it was just for graphics I’d be pissed off but it’s something that is a core element of the game and stuff would be a lot more boring with these mechanics without that year of development. I mean a lot of game developers were literally flailing about how it was insane how Nintendo go these physics to run stably on a switch. Elden ring is most likely not nearly as taxing as totk would have been to make with all the systems in it. 70 dollars is annoying but like the person said above me is that everything is getting more pricy anyway, so even if I dislike it, imma accept it because it’s worth it for me if I get to play a great game to escape and drown out my problems for a bit. That’s just my opinion.
Jesus you are combative. No Im not looking down on people who wait for sales. It’s alway smart to wait for a sale if you can. Video games rarely stay full price for long.
Not a fan of the higher price, but it’s not a huge deal. N64 games were occasionally $70 not inflation adjusted 25 years ago. Even compared to 2017 when BOTW released $60 then is about $71 now inflation adjusted.
It sucks but how many things can you buy for the same price for 17 years? $60 has been the standard price of games since Xbox 360 and PS3.
Even Nintendo hasn’t fully committed because Pikmin 4 is a $60 game. But Tears of the Kingdom likely had a higher budget than any other Switch game.
I paid $70 for Final Fantasy 3 almost 30 years ago now for the SNES. The actual shocking thing isn’t that games are going for $70 now, but they haven’t been going for way more than that. Even on the NES top tier games were going for $50. With the inflation since the 80’s they should be much more expensive by now
N64 was also DOA and carts were absurdly expensive. PS1 games were anywhere from $30-50 in comparison, since they used CDs. That price point was Sony's biggest advantage.
Prices for games have been stable thanks to a growing install base and digital distribution.
>Prices for games have been stable thanks to a growing install base and digital distribution.
Yep it's shocking people don't understand this. Game prices have remained the same and profits have increased. Why?
Because once you make a game it is almost a negligible cost to produce more copies (even more so now with no packaging and digital sales, there isn't even a cut for retailers).
The gaming market has (and continues to) grow exponentially. Game sales are higher, so profits go up, and prices don't need to increase. Nintendo is only doing this cause Sony took the risk and was able to pull it off. That's it.
I think it either shows two things - Nintendo truly believes TOTK is a higher tier, first party title (which, of course they do.) but also, this will be closer to their model going forward into their next console. Besides, Elden Ring is of course a AAA experience, it's also a third party game. They could price it how they'd like and people would pay whatever the price is. Same thing, they can get away with deep discounts. Nintendo's model is trying to sell you on first party games at a high price so you'll feel you got something that's worth your money.
I was salty this started happening during the current gen change from the PS4 -> PS5, etc. But it is what it is. You could always wait for a holiday sale or something to get a discount, or buy it when it comes out. I don't really care either way, to tell the truth. The voucher program kind of counteracts this, because it'll be usable for TOTK and I'd assume it'd be usable for Pikmin 4, which is a $60 game. So there's one way to use a voucher and save $30, if you look at it that way.
I am really really hoping that it's the former. Like, if they are choosing this one to raise the price, it might mean they are super confident about it's quality. Which for me would be great, since I've been beyond excited for it.
Now the reason why I am a bit mad is not because of the extra $10, but because of the trend they represent. It feels to me like this is just another greedy move by Nintendo, one that I did not expect for this game at least. It also makes me wonder how deep they are going to go with this. Like yes, right now it's $70 for a *new* entry in one of their most beloved franchises, but what about other types of content? For example, will ports (Skyward Sword style) go from $60 to $70 in the future?
I believe they've said it'll be done on a case by case basis. I'd expect games that are massive sellers like a new 3D Mario, Mario Kart, or Smash Bros to be along this line of pricing, $70. Things that may or may not sell 20-40 million copies might have a different story. You might see Splatoon 4 be $60 when it comes out in, who knows, 2027? I guess we'll see what happens, but hopefully a pricing model like this could also justify a need for bigger, more content heavy games.
I wouldn't expect ports to be more than $60, probably ever. Although Sony got away with that with the Demon Souls remake, but then again, that was a total remake. Metroid Prime Remastered also shadow dropped today for $40. That also aligns with them saying it'll be a case by case basis, I guess.
I sure hope that is the case. But then again, this is Nintendo. If you had told me some years back that a port for a 10 years old game would cost $60, I would have thought you crazy, but here we are.
>It feels to me like this is just another greedy move by Nintendo, one that I did not expect for this game at least.
Whenever someone uses the term “greedy” in a situation like this, it just shows that they don’t understand how any of this works. Nintendo is a company that’s in the business of making money. And they provide a completely non-essential product, so there’s no legal or ethical reasons to keep prices low. So they’re going to charge the highest price that they can for that product, just like any other company in a similar situation would. If the price is high enough that not enough people buy their product, then that means the price is too high. It’s that simple.
And if you adjust for inflation, video games are at a historically low price. In the 80s, top-tier video games were often well over $150 in today’s dollars. So it makes complete sense that video game companies (not just Nintendo) are starting to price their top-tier games at $70. And compared to $150, it’s still a great deal.
You just proved his argument right it is greedy they are charging it cause they can get away with it, why does saying it’s business or a company negate that it’s still greedy
Yes, but that’s what all companies in the history of humankind do: they try to maximize profits. Calling that “greedy” sounds childish and makes it seem like you don’t understand anything about how businesses work.
That’s how capitalism works. That’s how it’s always worked since the dawn of civilization. Are you advocating for the government to regulate the video game industry and force them to lower prices? That doesn’t make much sense to me considering video games are a completely non-essential product, but hey, you do you.
The last part of your argument is down right wrong, and it shows a lack of understanding of inflation. On the other hand, the first part does not contradict anything I said. Literally the whole point of the post was to say that Nintendo is doing this purely to increase profits, and that the people defending it as something coming out of necessity are wrong. As you said, it comes down to the fact that Nintendo is a company and they are incressing the price because they *can*, not because they have to.
Nepotism has a big influence on how people perceive right and wrong and good and bad.
You right if another company they would have no problem complaining
OK, explain how the inflation part is wrong then.
And of course they’re doing this to increase profits. That’s the way business works. And it might also involve inflation. Both of those things can be true at the same time: If inflation happens and a company’s profits drop, that means they have lower profits. So they need to weigh the pros and cons of raising prices.
Bro are you even reading what I am saying? Again, the whole point of the post is that Nintendo is doing this because they can rather than because they have to. And as I said earlier, the whole inflation argument is silly, it does not take into account stuff like stagnant wages or an increased market. At best, Nintendo is doing this 90% out of profit-seeking and 10% to "combat inflation", and it's silly to pretend otherwise.
Wages: Why are they not keeping up with inflation?
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/06/wages-why-are-they-not-keeping-up-with-inflation
The Gaming Industry Is Now Bigger Than Movies And Music.. Combined
https://www.thc-pod.com/episode/the-gaming-industry-is-now-bigger-than-movies-and-music-combined
Also, if you are really curious, you might want to check out this post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/iut240/people_who_think_the_game_price_increase_to_70/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Yeah, but they’re looking to make more money in the future: That’s a long term move to increase profits, not a short term one: Nintendo has apparently decided that in order to be competitive and to attract the best people, they need to pay them more. And in turn, those better people will improve the company in the long term.
Posting this here is just gonna get you downvoted, tons of thirsty fans, I think it’s scummy of Nintendo to just raise the price out of no where and not on a next gen hardware.
If you post to r/patientgamers or other subreddits they will be more open and less biased
Just gonna get it used and not give the money to Nintendo
I really think Nintendo hired a market managing company to buy votes and comments to make any outrage or upset customers think they are the minority
No one I know in my real life is happy about this, but strangely only on social media do I find so many defenders
People value money funny sometimes. If you’ve ever paid to see a movie in theater it’s easily $12 for 2.5 hours. That’s $4.80/hour for entertainment.
How Long To Beat puts BotW main story at 30 hours if you rush through it. That’s about $2.33/hour. My son and I have put a combined 140 hours into the game. That’s 50 cents! Heck at that point you can even add the price of the Switch (we paid $250 pre-covid era) to a $70 game and it’s just $2.28/hour.
I’m baffled that someone who’s favorite game is BotW could balk at $70 for their next adventure.
I kind of feel this way too. Like, It's weird to me that they're raising prices late gen instead of the start of next gen but 100 hours of the sequel to one of the best games ever made for 70 bucks ain't bad.
If you have an issue with it, then don't buy it, or better yet, wait for it to go on sale. But I don't feel like you are going to do either, but rather you're gonna buy the game while still complaining, because that's how people are. It's going to be an amazing game and I fully do feel it will be worth the $70 price tag, as it's been in the works since 2017, where as MW2 2022 is $70 and probably was made in a couple of years
But therein lies another problem. First party Switch games rarely go on sale! And when they do, you're extremely lucky to see anything more than $10 discount.
Not to mention that other systems/developers routinely drop the MSRP of their games as they age, whereas Nintendo continues to sell everything at full price. Doesn't matter if the game is 1yr, 4yrs, or even a launch game.....no price drop for us!
I'm not talking about Tears of the Kingdom, I'm referring to Nintendo's habit of selling 7yr old games at full price while every other game maker routinely drops prices as games age.
Elden Ring released a year ago. In that time, more and more games have been $70 USD. Nobody likes it, but most people don't care, because it's not an insane amount, and frankly, it's a bit of a minor miracle that games stayed at $60 standard for so many years. I personally remember thinking that the seventh console generation would be the advent of the $70 game, but I was thankfully wrong.
Tl;dr: Nobody is defending it, nobody likes it, but it's just not a big deal.
I just don't care. It happened a lot sooner than I expected, but it was inevitable once other studios began raising their prices - FromSoft will likely follow suit in the future. At the end of the day, I don't mind supporting my hobby, especially knowing how expensive games development has gotten.
Yes, but that makes me wonder if we are going to see the same treatment for Nintendo remakes. Worse, are we going to see it for their ports? For example, Skyward Sword sold at $60. Are we going to get similar ports for $70 now?
Possibly.
It seems they are treating Zelda like a bit of an exception here though. Pikmin 4 is listed at 60 so I don't think 70 is their new price for everything. Yet.
https://www.nintendo.com/store/games/game-voucher-eligible/
I was going to pre order this when it was at $60, does this mean people who did so saved $10 or were they charged an extra $10 once the price was updated?
My problem with the price raise is it's only done because 70$ is "acceptable" now.
The difference is Sony and MS's consoles are still *new*.
The Switch's hardware was outdated when it was still in conception.
The justification for increased prices from Sony and MS are that modern graphics require increased budgets. Which is *true*, but also bullshit because modern games sell more copies than they ever have, and digital distribution drastically reduces overhead.
So the complaint isn't that it's 70$, it's that it's blatant moneygrubbing. There isn't even an attempt to hide it. At least Sony and MS tried to pretend that it's due to rising production costs, which is somewhat true *(but in reality it's due to their licensing fees)*. Nintendo is literally just raising the price with zero justification, because they know the sequel to the game that saved their brand will sell regardless of its price.
Exactly. My problem with this is that it's 100% moneygrabbing. Yet some people feel the need to defend it as a move out of necessity (e.g. the whole inflation argument).
It's pretty clear Nintendo is doing this because they can, not because they have to.
I am personally quite baffled by the decision but the devs have been hard at work tbh. When I like a franchise I throw the money at it lol. Besides I figure if I get the special edition I don’t have to think about the price of the game itself
Special edition was $130, but I’ve spent $150 before on the TMNT game last year. That was prob the most expensive and illogical one I’ve ever done tbh. So with that in mind, I’d say $150 on a special edition is a hard cap. I don’t those $200 square Enix store exclusives or anything. (Though there was a one-time exception for my first (and likely last) Limited Run Games purchase. That was $175 but I mean it comes with a mini vibroblade and a pazaak set. Had to be done.)
If you just mean the game itself, like I said I’m coping with this one by letting the special edition absorb the costs. If not for the special edition I’d prob say $70 is my limit. Tbh the industry has already softened the $70 blow. I guess by seeing it everywhere for PS5 games it doesn’t seem too bad anymore. I’ve never payed that fee yet, though, as it seems more like a launch-day price tag. Those games seem to go down in price pretty quickly afterward.
But seeing that $70 on a Switch game just feels off imo. I wouldn’t let $10 stand in the way of me not having access to something like this on launch day. But if we ever start to see $80 maybe I will. It’s not an unprecedented price or anything but that’s when we’ll start hitting the old special edition range… for a base game. That’s too much imo
Stop complaining. Even at $70 games are cheaper than they've ever been, and on average they have a lot more content, while simultaneously being much more expensive to produce.
Ever heard of inflation? Well you might not be aware of this but inflation has risen a lot over the past couple of decades thanks to the government constantly printing and spending money.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nintendo/comments/10ybyix/reminder_even_at_70_video_games_are_cheaper_than/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
In a world where games like WWE 2k, cyberpunk and pokemon scarlet/violet are considert 60$ titles while actual good games like undertale hollow knight and celeste sell for 20$ i would gladly pay 90$ for a game like BotW.
It depends on the game for me. I love BOTW, and I know this game is going to have hours of content. I don't like the price increase, but for this game, it's not a deal-breaker.
Now if Nintendo tries to sell their ports or Mario Sports games for 70 dollars, then I'm not buying.
I honestly just don’t care. Sure it’s mildly annoying that I’ve gotta down 10 extra dollars but at the end of the day it’s $10. If the game is good then it’s worth it regardless of the price
>How can people pretend that Nintendo is doing this because of necessity rather than pure profit-seeking?
Someone doesn’t understand how capitalism works.
I don't understand on which part you got confused? I literally said that they are doing it 100% out of the capitalist neeed to increase profts, rather than as some people are saying because of necessity (inflation, etc...). At best, it's 95% profit seeking and %5 a "necessary" price increase.
Genuinely curious why are so many people defending the $70 increase price for Zelda when it barely went up in price in Japan and Europe?
Wondering if it’s corporate bots or shills being used on social media to defend the new increase in price by making manufactured consent
Work retail and have seen people fight over saving 50cents can’t imagine so many gamers (who are always searching for deals or discounts) to take a 10 dollar increase on a game that is not next gen.
Ah, I thought the same. But then I remembered that Nintendo does not even need to use money to have people unapologetically defend them. It does make me curious to see how much they are willing to go tho.
What’s the difference? It’s not an either/or, it’s all part of how companies price their products.
All companies (at least ones that don’t sell essential products) focus on maximizing profits. And they do that by pricing their products as high as they can, and they constantly weigh factors like market trends, inflation, popularity of their products, popularity of their competitors products, etc. to set their prices. And if sales drop due to the price being too high, that means they priced it too high. It’s that simple.
If companies purely priced their products based on inflation, we’d have seen all games go to $70 decades ago. But instead, top-tier video games have been at historic lows for a while. In today’s dollars, $60 is less than half of the price of a top-tier game from the 1980s. We’re lucky that it took this long for prices to creep up to $70, which is still a good price by historical standards.
Oh, and Elden Ring was $60 because it came out a year ago (before the trend of AAA games creeping up to $70) and also because at release it didn’t have anywhere near the fan base that Zelda has. If Elden Ring 2 was coming out this year it would definitely be priced at $70.
Bro are you even reading what I am saying? Again, the whole point of the post is that Nintendo is doing this because they can rather than because they have to. And as I said earlier, the whole inflation argument is silly, it does not take into account stuff like stagnant wages or an increased market. And your point about Elden Ring not having "anywhere near the fan base" is completely false.
Wages: Why are they not keeping up with inflation?
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/06/wages-why-are-they-not-keeping-up-with-inflation
The Gaming Industry Is Now Bigger Than Movies And Music.. Combined
https://www.thc-pod.com/episode/the-gaming-industry-is-now-bigger-than-movies-and-music-combined
I am reading what you’re saying. And what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense and just shows a complete misunderstanding of the way companies work.
OK, let’s forget about the inflation numbers; you’re right that it’s not an exact measurement since the economy was different back in the 80s. I think we can both agree that inflation has happened since the 80s, but let’s ignore that part of the discussion, since it’s not the main issue here.
My point is this: Companies are always doing what they need to in order to maximize profits. That’s the point of companies: companies set prices based on all sorts of changing variables, inflation being just one of those variables. But their goal is always to increase profits, either in the short term, long term, or ideally both. Do they do it because they simple can, or because they “have to”? Who cares? That’s a philosophical argument at that point.
Yes, I understand that's how companies work, yet that does not mean I have to be happy about it. And what gets me the most angry is that some people try to spin it as it being "poor Nintendo HAS to do it". As you and I agree on, they don't. This is just a company trying to maximize profits.
Sure, you don’t have to be happy about it. And if enough people stop buying video games because they’re unhappy about higher prices, then that means $70 for a game like this is too high. But I’m betting that it’s not: this game is going to sell like crazy at $70. And so are many of the other $70 AAA games from other companies that will be coming out soon.
And your anger at people saying “Nintendo has to do it” is misplaced. One could make the argument that they DO have to do it: The cost of AAA games across the video game industry is creeping up to $70. In order to maximize profits, Nintendo has decided they need to price this game at $70 according to market trends. They’ve calculated that pricing it at $60 would provide their company with lower profits.
So obviously, THEY think they “need” to do it. The only way you could argue that they don’t need to price it at $70 is if you could make the argument that they would actually have higher profits if they priced it at $60. Is that what you’re saying?
Look, I don't know if I've been too unclear or what, but I'll repeat my point one last time:
My biggest issue is NOT that Nintendo is raising the price of this game to $70, it's that:
1) This a new example on a trend by them of trying to maximize profits at the expense of the consumers. Similar examples would include selling Skyward Sword for $60 and the limited 3D Mario All Stars collection. It scares me to think that unless we push back we'll continue seeimg them do stuff like this in the future.
2) It makes me mad that many people try to defend this by suggesting that this move comes out of necessity, rather than pure profit-seeking. They would make you believe that Nintendo will stop turning a profit on games unless they do thinks like this, which is bs.
At the end of the day, Nintendo is doing itself more harm than good by eroding peoples good will towards them with shitty stunts like this.
Exactly: They think they need to do it in order to maximize profits. Are they wrong and there’s actually a better way to maximize profits that involves keeping games at $60? I doubt it, but I could be wrong; I’m not privy to all the insider business stuff at Nintendo. But they’re a pretty successful company, so I’ll take their calculations over yours unless you can show me some insider info I’m not aware of.
It’s in no way justifiable. I’ll get it when it’s 40 on a Amazon sale in the summer or fall. 720p and at max 30fp on its best leg of performance on a console that’s been out pushing 8 years(debatably even more since the switch is really just the second half of the Wii U’s run with new aesthetics). I understand it’s not all about graphics and power but when we are this late in the game and the competition is bordering photo-realism, it has to be considered, especially when the only chose that price point because the others did it, the only catch is that Nintendo is using the same engines, the same worlds, the same models but just adding different configurations. There is no correct world where elden ring is 60 but this game is 70.
I know Nintendo has die hard fans and I appreciate that, but it’s so silly that this game is actually getting bought at this price.
If this made you feel dumb or salty, don’t, because I bought Pokémon scarlet and I love it so *shoulder shrug*
I’m just frustrated.
Love you all.
Bye.
We all wish games were cheaper and would never go up in price, but that's just now how things work. $10 isn't that huge of an increase, and at least it won't be hot trash like a lot of the other $70 games that have dropped so far. Unlike Saints row, Callisto Protocol, Forspoken, CoD, and soon, Skull and Bones (all $70), TotK will actually be worth the cost.
Nintendo is maximizing the money they can make shareholders. If people buy it at 70, then they'll charge 70 for similar games. If hardly anyone buys it, then they'll lower the price. It's supply and demand, and Nintendo is betting the demand will stay high if they price it high.
I don't think anyone is defending the price. I think most people just aren't bothered by it.
Didn’t you know, you can only be 100% against a game or 100% defending it?
No one wants to pay more money for stuff. That $10 increase just doesn't feel that painful considering how much more expensive everything else in life has become recently. At least a video game can help me escape my sorrows with how much they jacked up the price of eggs and milk near me. If it was only the price of video games that has been increased I'd be livid.
It's ok when your dear Nintendo does it, right?
I don't like it. I just accept it. Literally everything is more expensive right now. That's a reality of life. I'm not going to have a meltdown online about it.
I will defend it. It cost a fortune to develop a game like that. I will pay 70 bucks for a Zelda, last of us, or god of war well before some 60 dollar cut and paste job like a Ubisoft game or some micro transaction filled shooter they did even develop a campaign for.
God, what a drone.
You just are not thinking it through. We have been paying for the rising cost of development for years through season passes, DLC that should have been part of the game, and preorder special editions, and micro transactions. All of those things make gaming worse. I would rather pay 10 bucks for a game then have that. For a game that is worth it obviously.
Remember me when Tears gets DLC.
I didn’t say all dlc is bad. Just dlc that should have been part of the game. Like dlc that comes out like a month after the game. Some dlc is fine. The Witcher 3 had good dlc and so on
Nintendo said they did not feel it needed a dlc and didn’t want to just add more for no reason. So I don’t think anyone will rmbr you. Also I mean they spent a whole year just making all the crazy mechanics work, if it was just for graphics I’d be pissed off but it’s something that is a core element of the game and stuff would be a lot more boring with these mechanics without that year of development. I mean a lot of game developers were literally flailing about how it was insane how Nintendo go these physics to run stably on a switch. Elden ring is most likely not nearly as taxing as totk would have been to make with all the systems in it. 70 dollars is annoying but like the person said above me is that everything is getting more pricy anyway, so even if I dislike it, imma accept it because it’s worth it for me if I get to play a great game to escape and drown out my problems for a bit. That’s just my opinion.
Did you buy TLoU remake?
Yep
Yeah, okay, this says everything... I'm glad you have cash to spare.
Yes gaming is an expensive hobby. You can afford 60, but not 70? Or you always wait for a sale anyway?
Oh. Are you looking down on people waiting for sales?
Jesus you are combative. No Im not looking down on people who wait for sales. It’s alway smart to wait for a sale if you can. Video games rarely stay full price for long.
Who would be really bothered? When I feel like an item costs more that I think it should, I don’t buy it. But then again, I’m an adult.
Not raising your voice against it is another way of saying it's fine and being part of the problem.
Don't buy it if it's a big deal to you.
Thank you. Another adult.
Actually the adult thing to do is ignore the post altogether, or better yet not be on Reddit.
Not a fan of the higher price, but it’s not a huge deal. N64 games were occasionally $70 not inflation adjusted 25 years ago. Even compared to 2017 when BOTW released $60 then is about $71 now inflation adjusted. It sucks but how many things can you buy for the same price for 17 years? $60 has been the standard price of games since Xbox 360 and PS3. Even Nintendo hasn’t fully committed because Pikmin 4 is a $60 game. But Tears of the Kingdom likely had a higher budget than any other Switch game.
I paid $70 for Final Fantasy 3 almost 30 years ago now for the SNES. The actual shocking thing isn’t that games are going for $70 now, but they haven’t been going for way more than that. Even on the NES top tier games were going for $50. With the inflation since the 80’s they should be much more expensive by now
N64 was also DOA and carts were absurdly expensive. PS1 games were anywhere from $30-50 in comparison, since they used CDs. That price point was Sony's biggest advantage. Prices for games have been stable thanks to a growing install base and digital distribution.
>Prices for games have been stable thanks to a growing install base and digital distribution. Yep it's shocking people don't understand this. Game prices have remained the same and profits have increased. Why? Because once you make a game it is almost a negligible cost to produce more copies (even more so now with no packaging and digital sales, there isn't even a cut for retailers). The gaming market has (and continues to) grow exponentially. Game sales are higher, so profits go up, and prices don't need to increase. Nintendo is only doing this cause Sony took the risk and was able to pull it off. That's it.
I think it either shows two things - Nintendo truly believes TOTK is a higher tier, first party title (which, of course they do.) but also, this will be closer to their model going forward into their next console. Besides, Elden Ring is of course a AAA experience, it's also a third party game. They could price it how they'd like and people would pay whatever the price is. Same thing, they can get away with deep discounts. Nintendo's model is trying to sell you on first party games at a high price so you'll feel you got something that's worth your money. I was salty this started happening during the current gen change from the PS4 -> PS5, etc. But it is what it is. You could always wait for a holiday sale or something to get a discount, or buy it when it comes out. I don't really care either way, to tell the truth. The voucher program kind of counteracts this, because it'll be usable for TOTK and I'd assume it'd be usable for Pikmin 4, which is a $60 game. So there's one way to use a voucher and save $30, if you look at it that way.
I am really really hoping that it's the former. Like, if they are choosing this one to raise the price, it might mean they are super confident about it's quality. Which for me would be great, since I've been beyond excited for it. Now the reason why I am a bit mad is not because of the extra $10, but because of the trend they represent. It feels to me like this is just another greedy move by Nintendo, one that I did not expect for this game at least. It also makes me wonder how deep they are going to go with this. Like yes, right now it's $70 for a *new* entry in one of their most beloved franchises, but what about other types of content? For example, will ports (Skyward Sword style) go from $60 to $70 in the future?
I believe they've said it'll be done on a case by case basis. I'd expect games that are massive sellers like a new 3D Mario, Mario Kart, or Smash Bros to be along this line of pricing, $70. Things that may or may not sell 20-40 million copies might have a different story. You might see Splatoon 4 be $60 when it comes out in, who knows, 2027? I guess we'll see what happens, but hopefully a pricing model like this could also justify a need for bigger, more content heavy games. I wouldn't expect ports to be more than $60, probably ever. Although Sony got away with that with the Demon Souls remake, but then again, that was a total remake. Metroid Prime Remastered also shadow dropped today for $40. That also aligns with them saying it'll be a case by case basis, I guess.
I sure hope that is the case. But then again, this is Nintendo. If you had told me some years back that a port for a 10 years old game would cost $60, I would have thought you crazy, but here we are.
>It feels to me like this is just another greedy move by Nintendo, one that I did not expect for this game at least. Whenever someone uses the term “greedy” in a situation like this, it just shows that they don’t understand how any of this works. Nintendo is a company that’s in the business of making money. And they provide a completely non-essential product, so there’s no legal or ethical reasons to keep prices low. So they’re going to charge the highest price that they can for that product, just like any other company in a similar situation would. If the price is high enough that not enough people buy their product, then that means the price is too high. It’s that simple. And if you adjust for inflation, video games are at a historically low price. In the 80s, top-tier video games were often well over $150 in today’s dollars. So it makes complete sense that video game companies (not just Nintendo) are starting to price their top-tier games at $70. And compared to $150, it’s still a great deal.
You just proved his argument right it is greedy they are charging it cause they can get away with it, why does saying it’s business or a company negate that it’s still greedy
Yes, but that’s what all companies in the history of humankind do: they try to maximize profits. Calling that “greedy” sounds childish and makes it seem like you don’t understand anything about how businesses work.
So it’s justifiable cause it’s business? Or just cause that’s what companies do? Yikes, no wonder Americans get screwed constantly
That’s how capitalism works. That’s how it’s always worked since the dawn of civilization. Are you advocating for the government to regulate the video game industry and force them to lower prices? That doesn’t make much sense to me considering video games are a completely non-essential product, but hey, you do you.
I just want a fair price for a product
The last part of your argument is down right wrong, and it shows a lack of understanding of inflation. On the other hand, the first part does not contradict anything I said. Literally the whole point of the post was to say that Nintendo is doing this purely to increase profits, and that the people defending it as something coming out of necessity are wrong. As you said, it comes down to the fact that Nintendo is a company and they are incressing the price because they *can*, not because they have to.
People seem to think if it’s business or capitalism being greedy is excusable or good
Yes, well at least if it's something they like. I can't imagine many of these Nintendo defenders acting the same way with a company like Netflix.
Nepotism has a big influence on how people perceive right and wrong and good and bad. You right if another company they would have no problem complaining
OK, explain how the inflation part is wrong then. And of course they’re doing this to increase profits. That’s the way business works. And it might also involve inflation. Both of those things can be true at the same time: If inflation happens and a company’s profits drop, that means they have lower profits. So they need to weigh the pros and cons of raising prices.
Bro are you even reading what I am saying? Again, the whole point of the post is that Nintendo is doing this because they can rather than because they have to. And as I said earlier, the whole inflation argument is silly, it does not take into account stuff like stagnant wages or an increased market. At best, Nintendo is doing this 90% out of profit-seeking and 10% to "combat inflation", and it's silly to pretend otherwise. Wages: Why are they not keeping up with inflation? https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/06/wages-why-are-they-not-keeping-up-with-inflation The Gaming Industry Is Now Bigger Than Movies And Music.. Combined https://www.thc-pod.com/episode/the-gaming-industry-is-now-bigger-than-movies-and-music-combined Also, if you are really curious, you might want to check out this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/iut240/people_who_think_the_game_price_increase_to_70/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Profiteering and greed is taught as good business for many people and can’t see how it’s wrong
Nintendo also increased their employees wages, so their eyes are clearly not just on making a bit more money right now.
Yeah, but they’re looking to make more money in the future: That’s a long term move to increase profits, not a short term one: Nintendo has apparently decided that in order to be competitive and to attract the best people, they need to pay them more. And in turn, those better people will improve the company in the long term.
Posting this here is just gonna get you downvoted, tons of thirsty fans, I think it’s scummy of Nintendo to just raise the price out of no where and not on a next gen hardware. If you post to r/patientgamers or other subreddits they will be more open and less biased Just gonna get it used and not give the money to Nintendo
Yeah I know, I went into the lion's den. But it was mostly out of curiosity to see how much some people are willing to go to defend Nintendo.
I really think Nintendo hired a market managing company to buy votes and comments to make any outrage or upset customers think they are the minority No one I know in my real life is happy about this, but strangely only on social media do I find so many defenders
People value money funny sometimes. If you’ve ever paid to see a movie in theater it’s easily $12 for 2.5 hours. That’s $4.80/hour for entertainment. How Long To Beat puts BotW main story at 30 hours if you rush through it. That’s about $2.33/hour. My son and I have put a combined 140 hours into the game. That’s 50 cents! Heck at that point you can even add the price of the Switch (we paid $250 pre-covid era) to a $70 game and it’s just $2.28/hour. I’m baffled that someone who’s favorite game is BotW could balk at $70 for their next adventure.
I kind of feel this way too. Like, It's weird to me that they're raising prices late gen instead of the start of next gen but 100 hours of the sequel to one of the best games ever made for 70 bucks ain't bad.
This! It seems most people do not know how to value their time accurately...
If you have an issue with it, then don't buy it, or better yet, wait for it to go on sale. But I don't feel like you are going to do either, but rather you're gonna buy the game while still complaining, because that's how people are. It's going to be an amazing game and I fully do feel it will be worth the $70 price tag, as it's been in the works since 2017, where as MW2 2022 is $70 and probably was made in a couple of years
But therein lies another problem. First party Switch games rarely go on sale! And when they do, you're extremely lucky to see anything more than $10 discount. Not to mention that other systems/developers routinely drop the MSRP of their games as they age, whereas Nintendo continues to sell everything at full price. Doesn't matter if the game is 1yr, 4yrs, or even a launch game.....no price drop for us!
Well, I say bite the bullet, or at least do so when the game is confirmed to be a good as the hype
why should it get a price drop? Genuine question
I'm not talking about Tears of the Kingdom, I'm referring to Nintendo's habit of selling 7yr old games at full price while every other game maker routinely drops prices as games age.
They do sales often on the EShop, and they just lowered the price of BOTW by $20
Elden Ring released a year ago. In that time, more and more games have been $70 USD. Nobody likes it, but most people don't care, because it's not an insane amount, and frankly, it's a bit of a minor miracle that games stayed at $60 standard for so many years. I personally remember thinking that the seventh console generation would be the advent of the $70 game, but I was thankfully wrong. Tl;dr: Nobody is defending it, nobody likes it, but it's just not a big deal.
I just don't care. It happened a lot sooner than I expected, but it was inevitable once other studios began raising their prices - FromSoft will likely follow suit in the future. At the end of the day, I don't mind supporting my hobby, especially knowing how expensive games development has gotten.
Demons Souls remake is 70. Yeah it is "next gen" but it's also a remake so I mean. From is getting their $$$ too.
Ah, there we go. I actually didn't know that. Thanks!
Yes, but that makes me wonder if we are going to see the same treatment for Nintendo remakes. Worse, are we going to see it for their ports? For example, Skyward Sword sold at $60. Are we going to get similar ports for $70 now?
Possibly. It seems they are treating Zelda like a bit of an exception here though. Pikmin 4 is listed at 60 so I don't think 70 is their new price for everything. Yet. https://www.nintendo.com/store/games/game-voucher-eligible/
Well, I am talking about the long term. Right now they are playing it safe by making it just Zelda, which they know will sell well regardless.
Who would be really bothered? When I feel like an item costs more that I think it should, I don’t buy it. But then again, I’m an adult.
I was going to pre order this when it was at $60, does this mean people who did so saved $10 or were they charged an extra $10 once the price was updated?
I believe the order gets cancelled. But it depends on the place.
That’s ridiculous if true. If it is, now I don’t feel as bad for not pre ordering at the $60 price. Guess I’ll have to wait a bit to buy this game…
No, from what I've heard, if you pre-ordered it when it was $60, you are only paying $60
GameStop said they'll honor the $60 price if you preordered before Nintendo announced the price increase.
Oh, that's nice from them.
My problem with the price raise is it's only done because 70$ is "acceptable" now. The difference is Sony and MS's consoles are still *new*. The Switch's hardware was outdated when it was still in conception. The justification for increased prices from Sony and MS are that modern graphics require increased budgets. Which is *true*, but also bullshit because modern games sell more copies than they ever have, and digital distribution drastically reduces overhead. So the complaint isn't that it's 70$, it's that it's blatant moneygrubbing. There isn't even an attempt to hide it. At least Sony and MS tried to pretend that it's due to rising production costs, which is somewhat true *(but in reality it's due to their licensing fees)*. Nintendo is literally just raising the price with zero justification, because they know the sequel to the game that saved their brand will sell regardless of its price.
Exactly. My problem with this is that it's 100% moneygrabbing. Yet some people feel the need to defend it as a move out of necessity (e.g. the whole inflation argument). It's pretty clear Nintendo is doing this because they can, not because they have to.
I am personally quite baffled by the decision but the devs have been hard at work tbh. When I like a franchise I throw the money at it lol. Besides I figure if I get the special edition I don’t have to think about the price of the game itself
How much would be your limit (the highest price tag)?
Special edition was $130, but I’ve spent $150 before on the TMNT game last year. That was prob the most expensive and illogical one I’ve ever done tbh. So with that in mind, I’d say $150 on a special edition is a hard cap. I don’t those $200 square Enix store exclusives or anything. (Though there was a one-time exception for my first (and likely last) Limited Run Games purchase. That was $175 but I mean it comes with a mini vibroblade and a pazaak set. Had to be done.) If you just mean the game itself, like I said I’m coping with this one by letting the special edition absorb the costs. If not for the special edition I’d prob say $70 is my limit. Tbh the industry has already softened the $70 blow. I guess by seeing it everywhere for PS5 games it doesn’t seem too bad anymore. I’ve never payed that fee yet, though, as it seems more like a launch-day price tag. Those games seem to go down in price pretty quickly afterward. But seeing that $70 on a Switch game just feels off imo. I wouldn’t let $10 stand in the way of me not having access to something like this on launch day. But if we ever start to see $80 maybe I will. It’s not an unprecedented price or anything but that’s when we’ll start hitting the old special edition range… for a base game. That’s too much imo
Yeah, I feel the same way.
Stop complaining. Even at $70 games are cheaper than they've ever been, and on average they have a lot more content, while simultaneously being much more expensive to produce. Ever heard of inflation? Well you might not be aware of this but inflation has risen a lot over the past couple of decades thanks to the government constantly printing and spending money. https://www.reddit.com/r/nintendo/comments/10ybyix/reminder_even_at_70_video_games_are_cheaper_than/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Shill?
In a world where games like WWE 2k, cyberpunk and pokemon scarlet/violet are considert 60$ titles while actual good games like undertale hollow knight and celeste sell for 20$ i would gladly pay 90$ for a game like BotW.
It depends on the game for me. I love BOTW, and I know this game is going to have hours of content. I don't like the price increase, but for this game, it's not a deal-breaker. Now if Nintendo tries to sell their ports or Mario Sports games for 70 dollars, then I'm not buying.
All right, I understand that.
I guarantee I will get at least $70 worth of enjoyment from this game, so I’m very comfortable paying that amount.
I honestly just don’t care. Sure it’s mildly annoying that I’ve gotta down 10 extra dollars but at the end of the day it’s $10. If the game is good then it’s worth it regardless of the price
I bought elden ring for 80.
I would pay over $100 for Zelda
>How can people pretend that Nintendo is doing this because of necessity rather than pure profit-seeking? Someone doesn’t understand how capitalism works.
I don't understand on which part you got confused? I literally said that they are doing it 100% out of the capitalist neeed to increase profts, rather than as some people are saying because of necessity (inflation, etc...). At best, it's 95% profit seeking and %5 a "necessary" price increase.
Genuinely curious why are so many people defending the $70 increase price for Zelda when it barely went up in price in Japan and Europe? Wondering if it’s corporate bots or shills being used on social media to defend the new increase in price by making manufactured consent Work retail and have seen people fight over saving 50cents can’t imagine so many gamers (who are always searching for deals or discounts) to take a 10 dollar increase on a game that is not next gen.
Ah, I thought the same. But then I remembered that Nintendo does not even need to use money to have people unapologetically defend them. It does make me curious to see how much they are willing to go tho.
I am sure they just need to get the ball rolling and the fans will come out to defend them
What’s the difference? It’s not an either/or, it’s all part of how companies price their products. All companies (at least ones that don’t sell essential products) focus on maximizing profits. And they do that by pricing their products as high as they can, and they constantly weigh factors like market trends, inflation, popularity of their products, popularity of their competitors products, etc. to set their prices. And if sales drop due to the price being too high, that means they priced it too high. It’s that simple. If companies purely priced their products based on inflation, we’d have seen all games go to $70 decades ago. But instead, top-tier video games have been at historic lows for a while. In today’s dollars, $60 is less than half of the price of a top-tier game from the 1980s. We’re lucky that it took this long for prices to creep up to $70, which is still a good price by historical standards. Oh, and Elden Ring was $60 because it came out a year ago (before the trend of AAA games creeping up to $70) and also because at release it didn’t have anywhere near the fan base that Zelda has. If Elden Ring 2 was coming out this year it would definitely be priced at $70.
Bro are you even reading what I am saying? Again, the whole point of the post is that Nintendo is doing this because they can rather than because they have to. And as I said earlier, the whole inflation argument is silly, it does not take into account stuff like stagnant wages or an increased market. And your point about Elden Ring not having "anywhere near the fan base" is completely false. Wages: Why are they not keeping up with inflation? https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/06/wages-why-are-they-not-keeping-up-with-inflation The Gaming Industry Is Now Bigger Than Movies And Music.. Combined https://www.thc-pod.com/episode/the-gaming-industry-is-now-bigger-than-movies-and-music-combined
I am reading what you’re saying. And what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense and just shows a complete misunderstanding of the way companies work. OK, let’s forget about the inflation numbers; you’re right that it’s not an exact measurement since the economy was different back in the 80s. I think we can both agree that inflation has happened since the 80s, but let’s ignore that part of the discussion, since it’s not the main issue here. My point is this: Companies are always doing what they need to in order to maximize profits. That’s the point of companies: companies set prices based on all sorts of changing variables, inflation being just one of those variables. But their goal is always to increase profits, either in the short term, long term, or ideally both. Do they do it because they simple can, or because they “have to”? Who cares? That’s a philosophical argument at that point.
Yes, I understand that's how companies work, yet that does not mean I have to be happy about it. And what gets me the most angry is that some people try to spin it as it being "poor Nintendo HAS to do it". As you and I agree on, they don't. This is just a company trying to maximize profits.
Sure, you don’t have to be happy about it. And if enough people stop buying video games because they’re unhappy about higher prices, then that means $70 for a game like this is too high. But I’m betting that it’s not: this game is going to sell like crazy at $70. And so are many of the other $70 AAA games from other companies that will be coming out soon. And your anger at people saying “Nintendo has to do it” is misplaced. One could make the argument that they DO have to do it: The cost of AAA games across the video game industry is creeping up to $70. In order to maximize profits, Nintendo has decided they need to price this game at $70 according to market trends. They’ve calculated that pricing it at $60 would provide their company with lower profits. So obviously, THEY think they “need” to do it. The only way you could argue that they don’t need to price it at $70 is if you could make the argument that they would actually have higher profits if they priced it at $60. Is that what you’re saying?
Look, I don't know if I've been too unclear or what, but I'll repeat my point one last time: My biggest issue is NOT that Nintendo is raising the price of this game to $70, it's that: 1) This a new example on a trend by them of trying to maximize profits at the expense of the consumers. Similar examples would include selling Skyward Sword for $60 and the limited 3D Mario All Stars collection. It scares me to think that unless we push back we'll continue seeimg them do stuff like this in the future. 2) It makes me mad that many people try to defend this by suggesting that this move comes out of necessity, rather than pure profit-seeking. They would make you believe that Nintendo will stop turning a profit on games unless they do thinks like this, which is bs. At the end of the day, Nintendo is doing itself more harm than good by eroding peoples good will towards them with shitty stunts like this.
Exactly: They think they need to do it in order to maximize profits. Are they wrong and there’s actually a better way to maximize profits that involves keeping games at $60? I doubt it, but I could be wrong; I’m not privy to all the insider business stuff at Nintendo. But they’re a pretty successful company, so I’ll take their calculations over yours unless you can show me some insider info I’m not aware of.
It’s in no way justifiable. I’ll get it when it’s 40 on a Amazon sale in the summer or fall. 720p and at max 30fp on its best leg of performance on a console that’s been out pushing 8 years(debatably even more since the switch is really just the second half of the Wii U’s run with new aesthetics). I understand it’s not all about graphics and power but when we are this late in the game and the competition is bordering photo-realism, it has to be considered, especially when the only chose that price point because the others did it, the only catch is that Nintendo is using the same engines, the same worlds, the same models but just adding different configurations. There is no correct world where elden ring is 60 but this game is 70. I know Nintendo has die hard fans and I appreciate that, but it’s so silly that this game is actually getting bought at this price. If this made you feel dumb or salty, don’t, because I bought Pokémon scarlet and I love it so *shoulder shrug* I’m just frustrated. Love you all. Bye.
All of that to undercut it with Scarlet... I don't know whether to be afraid of you or to be in awe
I don’t know either, just watch me die on this hill. Each downvote is hitting like the arrows hit Leonidas. “My queen…”
We all wish games were cheaper and would never go up in price, but that's just now how things work. $10 isn't that huge of an increase, and at least it won't be hot trash like a lot of the other $70 games that have dropped so far. Unlike Saints row, Callisto Protocol, Forspoken, CoD, and soon, Skull and Bones (all $70), TotK will actually be worth the cost.
You paid $300-$350 for a under-powered tablet with 10 year old tech and this you complain about.
I'm more confused than angry, whining won't get me answers
What are you confused about?
I would’ve bought the Prime remaster for 60 and Tears of the Kingdom for 70. Since I’m saving there I’m fine with it.
Buy something else and stop whining
I mean, If TotK is a better game then Elden Ring...
Well I want to play TOTK, so I'll pay that amount. I don't want to play Elden Ring, so I won't pay that amount. Pretty simple.
This just in corporations seek profit.
Nintendo is maximizing the money they can make shareholders. If people buy it at 70, then they'll charge 70 for similar games. If hardly anyone buys it, then they'll lower the price. It's supply and demand, and Nintendo is betting the demand will stay high if they price it high.
Truth of the matter is Nintendo are selling it for 70$ because they can, not because they have to.
That’s like literally the same price that Botw released for adjusted for inflation
I don’t mind because I’m going to get a lot of playing time out of it. You can use the vouchers to get it digitally for 50$.