• 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.

Eurogamer : Why Nintendo Switch games are ending up more expensive

Different publishers have different strategies. Bigger publishers can eat the costs more easily.

There are examples of smaller Publishers also being cheaper on Vita such as NIS America so I'm not sure it's just down to bigger publishers.

Gamecube still had optical media. Games cost no more to manufacture. Data space was the only difference as you said.

Regarding Vita vs. Switch game card cost, size would likely be a factor.

It's hard to believe that size it olaying that large of a roll where Vita games go from being significantly cheaper ($20-$30) than their console counterparts to Switch being $10 more.

I still feel like we don't have all the answers. I guess it's possible that it's because those games were made with Vita in mind and thus those costs were factored into the target price from the beginning.
 
So far smaller devs are releasing physical games like Redout and Issac.

Both cost more than their other counterparts. Redout it is currently listed at $39.99, which is $5 more than its Steam edition and in line with the Steam Deluxe edition. BoI is likewise $5 more than the complete Rebirth/Afterbirth bundle. You're paying something extra for the Switch version.

Redout it is 6gb on Steam. Binding of Isaac is much smaller.

It'll be interesting to see how big Rime is. Assuming a larger card would explain the gulf between the $5 upcharge for Nicalis games and the $10 charge here.
 

Xandremi

Member
Its really because they can, what is there to "explain"? i don't see the big deal, the market will decide if they are willing to pay the higher price. If Nintendo can charge full price for games years old, so what if developers price their games higher on Nintendo platforms compared to other platforms?
 

antonz

Member
These kind of things are what you budget into your games development from the start. When you are going 3-4 Platforms for a title you develop an overall Sales goal and what it will take financially to make it worthwhile.
You do not then single out a platform and say we need to charge $10 more because of arbitrary reasons. Every copy sold is a step towards profitability you budgeted for.

In the case of Rime. The Switch Port is probably the least amount of money they have spent of the overall budget. The game spent much of its life as a PS4 exclusive so if any platform should be eating the majority of development costs it is the PS4.
 
These kind of things are what you budget into your games development from the start. When you are going 3-4 Platforms for a title you develop an overall Sales goal and what it will take financially to make it worthwhile.
You do not then single out a platform and say we need to charge $10 more because of arbitrary reasons. Every copy sold is a step towards profitability you budgeted for.

In the case of Rime. The Switch Port is probably the least amount of money they have spent of the overall budget. The game spent much of its life as a PS4 exclusive so if any platform should be eating the majority of development costs it is the PS4.

None of the first paragraph really applies here. It was not budgeted that way from all indications.

Rime wasn't a multiplatform game until it changed to its current publisher in August last year. Previously it was PS4 only.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/08/10/rime-gets-a-new-publisher-more-info-coming-next-year

Switch as a platform is also different. Tantalus is handling the Switch port, not developer Tequila Works.
http://nintendowire.com/news/2017/01/27/team-behind-twilight-princess-hd-porting-rime-switch/

My guess is Tequila Works was up for the x86 ports, but declined to do a Switch version. My further guess is the game is multiplatform because of the publisher.
 

Shiggy

Member
There are examples of smaller Publishers also being cheaper on Vita such as NIS America so I'm not sure it's just down to bigger publishers.
.


Seems to be indeed publisher-dependent:
Sony consoles and handhelds are the main focus right now, and that's due to how progressive Sony is with allowing smaller publishers to do physical runs. I can't go into detail, but their minimum order quantities are incredibly reasonable compared to Microsoft and Nintendo. I don't get the feeling that either of the latter want to waste their time with smaller print runs. This is just one more reason on the pile of reasons to develop for Sony.

Due to the proprietary cartridge format of Vita games, production costs are about 50% higher. With our earlier releases we plan to stagger them by releasing PS4 discs first, when possible, followed by Vita carts. We'd do this to utilize any gains from the PS4 run to fund the Vita run. That said, we definitely plan to publish Vita exclusive games - we'll just have to stick to smaller print runs on those until we've built up our funds a bit.

http://www.pocket-console.com/2015/10/an-interview-with-limited-run-games.html?m=1

Also confirms what another user earlier said about Nintendo having higher costs for small print runs.
 

ramparter

Banned
I wonder if nintendo allows them to release physical packages with download code instead of game card like mario vs dk or starfox guard.
 

Lucifon

Junior Member
The telling aspect is plenty of games are releasing for the same price on each platform. I preordered Lego City Undercover for £35 on Switch, same price as xb1/ps4. Telltale's guardians of the galaxy is £20 on all platforms.

If they can do it so can other publishers.
 

tolkir

Member
The telling aspect is plenty of games are releasing for the same price on each platform. I preordered Lego City Undercover for £35 on Switch, same price as xb1/ps4. Telltale's guardians of the galaxy is £20 on all platforms.

If they can do it so can other publishers.

Don't worry, some people will find some excuse.
 

CLEEK

Member
So how does the manufacturing cost to publishers work?

If they want 1 million copies of a game made, they order this through the platform holder, right? Do they have to pay up front? Or does the manufacturing cost get taken out as part of the royalty the platform holder gets from each copy?

Either way, the cost to publishers is set by the platform holder. I doubt Sony and MS pass through direct manufacturing costs without a mark up.
 

Wereroku

Member
The telling aspect is plenty of games are releasing for the same price on each platform. I preordered Lego City Undercover for £35 on Switch, same price as xb1/ps4. Telltale's guardians of the galaxy is £20 on all platforms.

If they can do it so can other publishers.

You don't see the obvious difference between Warner Bro's and Grey Box. The difference is massive and a smaller publisher like Grey Box could not eat the same costs that Warner could. Someone else already posted in here that the larger companies are probably just eating the higher costs for the switch.

So how does the manufacturing cost to publishers work?

If they want 1 million copies of a game made, they order this through the platform holder, right? Do they have to pay up front? Or does the manufacturing cost get taken out as part of the royalty the platform holder gets from each copy?

Either way, the cost to publishers is set by the platform holder. I doubt Sony and MS pass through direct manufacturing costs without a mark up.

With Sony at least we know Limited Run puts the orders in with cash upfront and the costs are set by the size of the run and any extras included. I would assume on physical games Sony's cut is taken out at the time of manufacture so that would probably be reflected in the bill at production.
 
Sonic Mania is a download code.

That's only for the Collector's Edition. I think ramparter's referring to standard/non-special edition "retail" games.

There have been rumors/reports the game might get a physical release in previous weeks, though we don't know if they will be download codes of physical copies. There's a SXSW Sonic event this Thursday with more info for Mania and Sonic 2017, so we'll probably find out there.
 

Pancake Mix

Copied someone else's pancake recipe
I figured there was an appreciable difference. It's not that larger game cards are expensive per se anymore, but Blu-ray discs are incredibly cheap. This was an obvious concern to anyone going in, yet some people (possibly fanboys) downplayed the relative costs of say, a 32 GB game card.

For smaller games like Rime, yeah the publisher will just want to charge whatever the market will bear, but they, like anyone, would notice an appreciable difference in manufacturing costs, even if it's nowhere near what they're charging. They notice a difference but try to charge the most they can anyways, with the fact they'd make less money per unit otherwise as their justification. The fact that there's a different (much higher) fee for third-parties on Switch compared to PS4/XB1 (due to manufacturing costs) will likely preclude too many 32 GB 3rd party titles the rest of this decade. Remember how Nintendo "recommended" 16 GB cards or something like that? There's a reason for that.

Not to same that Rime isn't a cash grab, it is, but there is a price difference that would result in lost profit at the same price as PS4/XB1. Companies don't like that, and they'll always want to price things at the most the market will bear regardless.

Of course physical and digital games should cost the same, and console manufacturers need retail anyways.
 

kyser73

Member
You can quibble with the numbers here, but these napkin math posts are closer to the truth than the "Carts cost $4, the price shouldn't jump $10" commentary.

That's because 10k included retailer costs in his mix. Unsold stock is a big issue (it was raised as a point in last month's NPD in relation to the physical Nioh shortages), and who bears the cost of returns is a big factor for retailers.
 

lherre

Accurate
I saw a lot of comments about Vita ports of ps3/ps4 games. Sony "incentive" those ports to happen (few license fees, cheap development kits,commercial/advertisement agreements, etc). It's a totally different situation than Rime. The companies see Vita ports as cheap investments. And besides this multiplats are almost entirely japanese titles focused in Japan where Vita sold a bit and PS4/XB1/PC aren't big so Vita has the potential to sell this kind of ports
 
You guys love gobbling this shit up eh, one story with no receipts and then it spreads like wildfire and is suddenly all truth.
 
You guys love gobbling this shit up eh, one story with no receipts and then it spreads like wildfire and is suddenly all truth.

I was looking at pre-ordering lego city earlier, and its actually £5 cheaper on Switch than other versions (X1,PS4). Narrative boat as truly sailed though.
 

Shiggy

Member
I was looking at pre-ordering lego city earlier, and its actually £5 cheaper on Switch than other versions (X1,PS4). Narrative boat as truly sailed though.

I don't think they've announced the retail price yet, but digital pricing seems to be £49.99/EUR59.99 across all platforms.

At retail, the cheapest option I've found for the UK was £35.99 for PS4/X1 and £36.99 for Switch.

Looks like WBIE is charging the same price for all three versions.
 
I saw a lot of comments about Vita ports of ps3/ps4 games. Sony "incentive" those ports to happen (few license fees, cheap development kits,commercial/advertisement agreements, etc). It's a totally different situation than Rime. The companies see Vita ports as cheap investments. And besides this multiplats are almost entirely japanese titles focused in Japan where Vita sold a bit and PS4/XB1/PC aren't big so Vita has the potential to sell this kind of ports

This. Also, weren't dev costs much cheaper than what we're seeing with Switch now? Vita was kind of somewhere in between 3DS and HD consoles in terms of assets.
 

Calm Mind

Member
Port cost comes into blame as well. I was disappointed Nintendo went with ARM because that means companies have to devote entire teams into porting games to their system. It might be "easy" to port but it still costs time, money and requires teams. PS4/XB1/PC are all x86 now and the Switch will suffer being the lone system with a different architecture.

Rime's $10 Nintendo tax is certainly due to ARM and the cartridge format.

You are so wrong that I'm pretty sure Eurogamer would use you as a source.
 
I don't think they've announced the retail price yet, but digital pricing seems to be £49.99/EUR59.99 across all platforms.

At retail, the cheapest option I've found for the UK was £35.99 for PS4/X1 and £36.99 for Switch.

Looks like WBIE is charging the same price for all three versions.

£34.99 for all 3 versions

http://www.smythstoys.com/uk/en-gb/search/?q=lego city#1&profile=UK

WBIE are a massive publisher and can easily eat the media costs to have price parity.
 

ethomaz

Banned
I understand these points.

Nintendo needs to make his environment fair for all retailers... making Digital cheaper than Physical will make retailers unhappy because they will only beneficial Nintendo own digital sales.

Making retail unhappy is a pretty bad move because Nintendo need them to sell the console to consumers... there is no way to sell a digital console.

Nintendo can't do nothing about in my view and of course the high digital price is beneficial Nintendo too that receives more for the same game.
 

joesiv

Member
I understand these points.

Nintendo needs to make his environment fair for all retailers... making Digital cheaper than Physical will make retailers unhappy because they will only beneficial Nintendo own digital sales.

Making retail unhappy is a pretty bad move because Nintendo need them to sell the console to consumers... there is no way to sell a digital console.

Nintendo can't do nothing about in my view and of course the high digital price is beneficial Nintendo too that receives more for the same game.
Actually in this day and age, I bet they could sell exclusively through online retailers, heck they could just sell them on Nintendo.com and have consoles shipped to everyone.

Maybe the world isn't ready for it yet, but with one day, and even same day shipping, shopping online is where it's at.

Even if they just selected a few retailers, say bestbuy, and then just have physical prices what they are and digital prices the way they should be (discounted), bestbuy probably wouldn't care. They'd sell boatloads of physical copies, since there are always people who want them, and will pay a premium for them (collectors for instance, or those wanting to resell).

Google does this with the chromecast, and those things have sold 30million
 

guybrushfreeman

Unconfirmed Member
Actually in this day and age, I bet they could sell exclusively through online retailers, heck they could just sell them on Nintendo.com and have consoles shipped to everyone.

Maybe the world isn't ready for it yet, but with one day, and even same day shipping, shopping online is where it's at.

Even if they just selected a few retailers, say bestbuy, and then just have physical prices what they are and digital prices the way they should be (discounted), bestbuy probably wouldn't care. They'd sell boatloads of physical copies, since there are always people who want them, and will pay a premium for them (collectors for instance, or those wanting to resell).

Google does this with the chromecast, and those things have sold 30million

Being in stores on shelves is advertising. No gaming company wants to lose that yet it's huge
 

ethomaz

Banned
Actually in this day and age, I bet they could sell exclusively through online retailers, heck they could just sell them on Nintendo.com and have consoles shipped to everyone.

Maybe the world isn't ready for it yet, but with one day, and even same day shipping, shopping online is where it's at.

Even if they just selected a few retailers, say bestbuy, and then just have physical prices what they are and digital prices the way they should be (discounted), bestbuy probably wouldn't care. They'd sell boatloads of physical copies, since there are always people who want them, and will pay a premium for them (collectors for instance, or those wanting to resell).

Google does this with the chromecast, and those things have sold 30million
I don't support this ideia yet.

People go crazy at stores on Black Friday and most consumers only buy from the Best Buy, Wallmart, Gamestop, Target, etc near it home.

Retail is still too strong at the point you won't sell your consoles without them.

Chronecast is another product for a different market... and I believe if it was in the retail it could sell way more.

You need retail.
 

Eolz

Member
Nah that can't be true, remember all these people on this thread defending Nintendo and blaming the Rime publishers?

Nintendo never do any wrong, it's always other people.

Can't be a decision by Sega obviously. It's a different price in the USA, but not in CA and EU because Nintendo forced Sega only in those countries?
 
I don't see the issue? The consumer gets the same thing if they buy physical, or digital, access to the game. It makes sense that the manufacturer would want to standardise pricing between the two, even if one yields higher costs.

Otherwise one would obviously cripple the other, losing the high-street presence that these consoles and games have, but those sales wouldn't just shift to digital, many of them would just be lost out-right. Those that still shop on the high street would just not buy the system, games, etc. as frequently. The industry would suffer, with developers and publishers selling less. The end result is lower profit per game sold, which would see developers upping the costs of their games, or reducing the cost of their games to compensate.

It's been this way for years, across all platforms. Standardised pricing across digital and physical distribution is the best thing for the industry right now.
 

Pokemaniac

Member
I don't see the issue? The consumer gets the same thing if they buy physical, or digital, access to the game. It makes sense that the manufacturer would want to standardise pricing between the two, even if one yields higher costs.

Otherwise one would obviously cripple the other losing the high-street presence that these consoles and games have, but those sales wouldn't just shift to digital, many of them would just be lost out-right. Those that still shop on the high street would just not buy the system, games, etc. as frequently. The industry would suffer, with developers and publishers selling less. The end result is lower profit per game sold, which would see developers upping the costs of their games, or reducing the cost of their games to compensate.

It's been this way for years, across all platforms. Standardised pricing across digital and physical distribution is the best thing for the industry right now.

You know what's also standard? Consistent pricing across platforms.
 

joesiv

Member
I don't support this ideia yet.

People go crazy at stores on Black Friday and most consumers only buy from the Best Buy, Wallmart, Gamestop, Target, etc near it home.

Retail is still too strong at the point you won't sell your consoles without them.

Chronecast is another product for a different market... and I believe if it was in the retail it could sell way more.

You need retail.
I don't think we're ready for it yet. I could see this going in a couple steps, and the customer wins in the end:
1) Nintendo drops the price equivalency for eshop games. physical games are more expensive, but you get more, you get something physical, I'm ok with that. gamestop and other retailers that rely on games sales to survive (used mostly :S), will put up a fuss, and give up shelf space/advertising
2) Nintendo doubles down, and gives exclusive console sales to retailers that don't care about eshop, ones that are nation wide, think BestBuy and Walmart.

Nintendo would get the holiday/blackfriday rushes, people could still go out and get their consoles/games physically.

In the end, if Nintendo is extremely successful, bestbuy might come back and ease up on their price parity requirement.

Who knows... I don't like that retailers have so much control over market success. Nintendo's been burned by retailers too, GameCube for example had very little shelf space back in the day, back then, going online/exclusive wasn't an option.
 
You know what's also standard? Consistent pricing across platforms.

That's not even true. We've seen lots of disparity across platforms in the past. PS3 versions of games have costed less than PS4 versions, for instance. N64 versions of games (e.g. Wipeout) carried a higher cost than their PS1 counterparts.

Either way, if you want consistent pricing across platforms then you have two options

1. Either Switch retail prices go down

or

2. Everything else goes up to match Switch retail prices

If the cost of Switch retail prices go down, then the margins on Switch retail games go down. The incentive to produce and stock physical releases is grossly reduced. It cripples the Switches physical market, and in turn, the Switch itself as a result of reduced store presence.

The alternative, which no one wants, is more likely if we were forced to choose from either of these terrible options. Which would obviously harm the industry as a whole as prices hike on every platform but Nintendo's.

The reality is that high pricing of Nintendo's titles makes sense as a result of the higher costs associated with physical distribution. The matched prices across physical and digital make sense because we don't want to cripple the physical market and in turn, the Switch's presence in brick and mortar stores.
 

zephry

Member
Very interesting article. It seems that Nintendo is just doing what they've been doing for better or worse. I know I wont be happy with their prices, but I will get it regardless.
 
The article sounds like a lame excuse for Rime price. It has no real facts only rumors, and has factual errors, because there are Switch games with different physical/digital prices.
 

KonradLaw

Member
The pragmatic solution would be for Nintendo to adopt an (industry standard) policy of not allowing to charge more for an identical game compared to similar platforms.
.

Only if they lower the fee from each game they get to cover the bigger cost of manufacturing. Making publishers earn less on a copy of a game compared to XONE and PS4 is a surefire way to kill 3rd party support for the platform.
 
Top Bottom