All they'll say is that we aren't able to sell our games on the Switch and drop support.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Nintendo Switch Tax begins with...Minecraft Story Mode?!
- Thread starter MaverickHunterX
- Start date
All they'll say is that we aren't able to sell our games on the Switch and drop support.
Vita games cost the same as their PS4 counterparts (and sometimes even cheaper), and a lot of times you get cross-buy even.
So no, it's not a "portable tax". It's a bullshit "Nintendo" tax.
Saucycarpdog
Member
The exact opposite of the mobile discount.
TheSpoiler
Member
I was joking.
Dark Cloud
Member
Good thing the only Flash game by that name costs $5.
Portable versions tend to be cheaper.
Look at PS4 and Vita multiplats like Digimon, Dariusbust, Musous, Senran Kagura and Odin Sphere, etc.
frankie_baby
Member
Cartridge costs for switch and disc costs for 4/bone are presumably included in the "licence fee" and in a world where has been heroes can be sold for 20 bucks i just cant imagine the switch fee being much higher at all than 4/bone, its just companies trying to cash in switch's newness
Rebirth is a huge update to the flash game, Afterbirth is a huge update to Rebirth, and Afterbirth+ is a sizable update to Afterbirth, but whatever.
No chance Atlus' big games will be less than $60. Seems to be the standard price point given the current and upcoming big games.
I think when people mention portable tax they are referring to the fact that the Switch is both a home console and a handheld and are therefore getting two versions of a game for a fee.
I don't necessarily buy the portable tax just yet, we've seen publishers like Square Enix in the past try to sell a year old RotTR to PS4 gamers for $50-60 when the XB1 edition could be had for under $30.
We need to see games that are day and date, like-for-like before we can pass judgment.
Jaded Alyx
Member
Monster Boy devs are looking to have a physical version of their game released for Switch, and said the price will be the same as the digital version. Not $10 extra or anything like that.
CaviarMeths
Member
3DS games cost the same as their Wii U counterparts (and sometimes even cheaper). Games that were multiplat on 3DS and Vita were priced the same too.
So no, it's not a "Nintendo tax". It's a bullshit "taking advantage of early adopters thirsty for games to play" tax.
This is insane to me. With this logic, e-books should be more expensive since you DON'T have a physical book to carry around.
Maybe so, but letting them know WHY it happened helps, too. Still, vote with your wallet.
TheSpoiler
Member
They should charge more per device that I'm able to read my eBook on.
Luckily I had one before PS4 even came out.
I am sure Nintendo can do something about this..
On the other hand, this seems to be turning into a Nintendo bashing thread again.. Binding of Issac a flash game? Sure its roots definitely originated from one.. but it just ridiculous to call it a flash game now.. and I am sure you can remote play in the plane or wherever u wanted to.
On the other hand, this seems to be turning into a Nintendo bashing thread again.. Binding of Issac a flash game? Sure its roots definitely originated from one.. but it just ridiculous to call it a flash game now.. and I am sure you can remote play in the plane or wherever u wanted to.
Will retail for $29.99 on all platforms, but $39.99 on Switch.
frankie_baby
Member
Well one other thing to take away from this is that story mode is releasing end of june, could we see regular minecraft before then then?
Dark Souls 2 did not launch at $20.
Jack The Nipper
Banned
Maybe they consider lower sales plus the cart. I don't think they are doing it just to do it
It was really meant to be a joke. But it is funny that people continue to make excuses for the premiums that they have to pay for Switch games and accessories.
In the sense that this is what using cartridges results in, sure.
The Dear Leader
Banned
I'm having a hard time imagining what a TellTale game will perform like on the Switch.
ultrazilla
Member
But is *it* really Nintendo deciding to do it or are the publishers passing it on?
FDG has said on Twitter that if they do a physical release of Monster Boy on Switch it will be the same price across all platforms.
Vote for a physical Switch release for Monster Boy here:
https://twitter.com/FDG_Games
Reply from FDG when a fan says it won't be worth it if the Switch is $10 more.....
FDG has said on Twitter that if they do a physical release of Monster Boy on Switch it will be the same price across all platforms.
Vote for a physical Switch release for Monster Boy here:
https://twitter.com/FDG_Games
Reply from FDG when a fan says it won't be worth it if the Switch is $10 more.....
OrbitalBeard
Member
You are really reaching with this argument. Complete Editions of older titles launching with no "vanilla" version on a new platform is a completely standard practice. There's a reason no one but you is talking about this.
Sword Of Doom
Member
When they showed the reveal video I thought to myself how the market they're going for is used to very cheap mobile games and how game pricing would be a challenge. I didn't expect console games to be even more expensive on the Switch.
MaverickHunterX
Member
I getcha boss. Your first point kinda reminds me of the N64 days, where you'd get sub-par ports that were more expensive and worse in quality in comparison (the Tony Hawk trilogy comes to mind), but with that said, in those days, such titles still sold reasonably and even remained high in the rental charts. I think during the GameCube years, with the advent of online gaming (and Ninty fighting tooth and nail against it, save for PSO), more consumers refrained for purchasing "Nintendo versions" of third party games, rather choosing to do so on other consoles.
For the second - I really hope that my post didn't come off as "entitled gamer," rather than trying to figure out why Nintendo wouldn't set out to stop one of the reasons Wii U lost their third party support- because people didn't want to pay for shoddy ports with missing features. And this was someone whose guilty pleasure was playing COD on Wii U with split screen support.
The sad thing is that you are right about the Minecraft at $60 point - heck, we're seeing the $20 versions slowly being replaced by $30 "favorites" packs. And at this rate, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Switch version at $40. But it still seems like a lose-lose. If such a thing succeeds, it only means that more companies are going to jump on the "switch tax" bandwagon, and hopefully don't go into the GC/Wii/Wii U trend of bad ports.
If it fails, then, it'll be like last-gen, where these companies point at the terrible sales and say, "See, this is why we don't wanna make Switch games..." and a total repeat of the Wii U generation.
True. But almost all of the above had SOME improvement over its previous edition, making it worthwhile to fans and newcomers. It's not the exact thing with a tiny difference (like Arkham City)
Its a BS tax.
No. Its this:
Yup, this is gonna to into an excuse, justification. And its BS.
Exactly.
I hope to god MS and Sony dont start charging extra for remote play and Play Anywhere,
or Sony charging even extra for PS Now especially since its getting PS4 games added to it. I mean doesnt MS offer PC versions of some games free as like a bundle? I might have that backwards but still the point stands...
At the same time.....yall that want the Switch to be a success might have to support this. I mean ppl did support paying for online last gen and this gen....
Me? It was gonna be an exclusive machine anyway. Pretty much like the XBO is. (except for 360 B/C. Such a good feature they added after the fact)
And like stated earlier...the Switch tax started with Rime...
OrbitalBeard
Member
Some of them do, some of them don't. But regardless, that's not really the point.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Hm.
Not that I was going to get this, anyway, but I'm not going to get any games that cost more on the Switch for no reason.
Not that I was going to get this, anyway, but I'm not going to get any games that cost more on the Switch for no reason.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Yeah, I agree. It's a horrible argument.
If it is a standard practice then I'm sure you'll be able to cite some examples of the launch price more than doubling across different platforms.
ArchedThunder
Banned
Wait, what content are Street Fighter and Lego City missing?
OrbitalBeard
Member
Oh my god. If you were talking about VANILLA Isaac doubling in price, you'd have a point. I'm talking to a brick wall.
Sword Of Doom
Member
Why would there be a "portable" tax when the system is hybrid and the game is just ported to the system. It's not like devs are creating too versions or different control schemes. It's a completely bullshit argument
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Just to clarify -- I wasn't responding directly to your post, more the general concept of people being charged extra for the same game. I'm not judging anyone for being upset, and I don't think there's anything wrong with being upset
The_Endgamer
Member
Super Bomberman went up this week by over 38% to $89AUD so this is small by that measure.
Realistically, this is probably one of the ways Nintendo is aiming to get 3rd parties on board. Total autonomy for the publisher to price their goods.
Realistically, this is probably one of the ways Nintendo is aiming to get 3rd parties on board. Total autonomy for the publisher to price their goods.
Especially when Sony has cross buy and didnt Nintendo start doing that recently too?
Now the excuse is the portability tax? Cmon ppl....this is BS.
Especially if these games arent cross buy.
I think MS started something like cross buy with PC/XBO games. I'm too lazy to search for the exact way MS is doing it, lol.
Thank you....
eighty(one)
Member
Then again, Switch is a home console, that is also portable.
I don't expect Vita/3DS pricing. I wouldn't balk at $40...
...However, in the case of 3DS (removing Nintendo IP) other than MH...some Square RPGs and Atlus games - 3DS didn't have strong support or prolonged western support. Part of that attributes to devs don't put high effort/profit return on $40.00.
Why bother when devs could make PS4/XB1 games and charge $60? What incentive is there to put effort and development for the same game at $40? Especially, if release date parity eventually comes along.
I want Switch to succeed and if the games come, for the standard $60 pricing, I'll bite.
Why?
I'm paying $60 for a console game, I can play anywhere.
Or could think of it like a $40 console game and getting the vita/3DS version for $10-$20 more included.
This, this thread and the Rime thread is another thing some of us talked about before the Switch launched as a possible hurdle. Pricing.