It's not that I don't necessarily believe there is increased costs Switch's media format, but you'll have to excuse my being skeptical of any excuses made by these companies who won't even pay their taxes.
cheers.
It's not that I don't necessarily believe there is increased costs Switch's media format, but you'll have to excuse my being skeptical of any excuses made by these companies who won't even pay their taxes.
It's ok for me.
That rule from Nintendo is of course pure bs where physical games needs to have the same price as the digital versions but I'm just happy that they don't say it's digital only to sell it cheaper like other indie developer.
I'm just happy that I can get it physically.
Nintendo already has to be subsidizing these costs versus Sony and MS. I can guarantee you they're making less per unit on manufacturing at these prices than the others are.If Nintendo really cares about 3rd parties they'd subsidise these costs
Yes?Many people say this, but when it's a game they really care about the price doesn't matter. If it were Red Dead Redemption or something like that would you be saying the same thing?
Nintendo already has to be subsidizing these costs versus Sony and MS. I can guarantee you they're making less per unit on manufacturing at these prices than the others are.
Lmao at Jawbreaker's satirical post turning out to be a point of discussion later on.
MS and Sony have it too, it's to not piss off the retail stores. Have to remember office politics are a heavy presence in the industry.
That sucks. The game is already not highly anticipated. Now no one will buy it and rockstar won't port their actual games over. Lame.
Cute strawman. At $299 Nintendo's already eating as much as they could on Switch hardware considering the technology packed in. This is apples to oranges anyway.How can you guarantee that?
And why would they be willing to make less you if you argued they were unwilling to eat the cost of additional storage?
There also disadvantages on the Switch version like worse Graphics, framerate, motion controls,IQ etcSo one should not take into account the advantages of each console when deciding on what version of the game to buy? Or are you just arguing semantics, because "being able to play at home and on the go" is exactly the same as "getting a handheld version and home console version," in terms of what they actually mean. I'm really confused as to why someone can't consider the portability of the Switch as a bonus in their decision to buy LA Noire for it. Can someone not cite, say, free online and KB+M support as a reason they'd prefer Destiny 2 on PC because they're inherent features of the console?
Note that I'm not saying it's a justification for the flat $10 increase, but more a reason for why someone might be more susceptible to it than they would have been otherwise. This ain't like the N64 where, say, Resi 2 might have costed $10+ more despite offering no real benefits.
It being a better rounded figure isn't really a good excuse (not that you're saying it is). We have those prices in the UK all the time due to currency conversions and nobody's confused or perplexed; hell, LA Noire itself is £35/£45 here.
That sounds a bit Anti consumerI will say that I don't think the Switch tax will be as big of a problem as what some people think. Ultra Street Fighter II did surprisingly fine at the insane $40 asking price, as did 1-2 Switch at $50. So people may put up with some games being more expensive as long as they can take the game with them. Remember, the Switch's primary target audience doesn't care that there's better looking versions, they care about the fact that they can take the game with them.
There also disadvantages on the Switch version like worse Graphics, framerate, motion controls,IQ etc
There also disadvantages on the Switch version like worse Graphics, framerate, motion controls,IQ etc
There also disadvantages on the Switch version like worse Graphics, framerate, motion controls,IQ etc
Don't get me wrong, I'm against the Switch tax if there's no real justification to it, and I definitely don't want this to become standard across the board for all Switch games. All I'm saying is that as long as the port is good, Switch players will buy it due to the fact that they can take it with them.That sounds a bit Anti consumer
Even despite the big downturn in their business, Gamestop still has a lot of power to be able to pull off big exclusives, like Destiny 2's LE being exclusive to their stores. You ignore your potential retail presence at your own peril.
Dont Nintendo games have better re-sale value as well?
Maybe I'm dumb, but 60% more than the cost of a Blu-ray disc doesn't strike me as very much at all. Certainly doesn't explain a $10 price difference.Yeah we've been over this already with this game and others. @ZhugeEx even went into it the other day.
That sucks. The game is already not highly anticipated. Now no one will buy it and rockstar won't port their actual games over. Lame.
None of which matter in this sort of game. I'd rather save a few bucks and have higher resolution.
Edit: Switch is definitely going to be a first party machine for me. It's going to be rare for me to buy a big AAA third party on this machine.
Maybe I'm dumb, but 60% more than the cost of a Blu-ray disc doesn't strike me as very much at all. Certainly doesn't explain a $10 price difference.
That sounds a bit Anti consumer
Costs are much closer now too. Switch cards are universally much cheaper than N64 carts were (which could exceed $20/unit, it was insane) while PS4 Blurays are a little pricier than PS1 CD-roms were.Welcome to N64 vs PlayStation kids but at least cartridges are close to the size of disc this time around.
Again $1.50 isn't what 3rd parties pay. It might be what Sony and MS pay but it isn't what they charge.I'm sure this isn't right, but someone on hear said blu rays with packaging and all cost $1.50-$1.60 per unit. That makes a switch game at 60% more $2.56 might as well round it up to $10 because that makes sense.
Switch tax.
I hate this. Any other handheld game would be priced lower. I hope this isn't the situation going forward.
Again $1.50 isn't what 3rd parties pay. It might be what Sony and MS pay but it isn't what they charge.
Switch tax.
I hate this. Any other handheld game would be priced lower. I hope this isn't the situation going forward.
Switch tax.
I hate this. Any other handheld game would be priced lower. I hope this isn't the situation going forward.
This is a bad game and this is just another potential reason that people should avoid it.
You can't just use that word as a catch all buzzword with no retort for anything you don't like. If the cost of something can be reasonably justified and it's not just being hiked for the sake of it it's not "anti-consumer".
There also disadvantages on the Switch version like worse Graphics, framerate, motion controls,IQ etc
I'm quoting this again before people use even more stupid calculation to somehow blame it on the 3rd parties.
Especially Plum who's very mad about the additional $2 that make Rockstar even richer.
"Very mad"
Huh?
.See this part is utter bs from publishers.
Nintendo, oh you!
Low-brow drive-by, 0/10.Nintendo, oh you!