Support NeoGAF

[Andyliini]

Right...
Since it's physical, it should be available later with cheaper price later. Will by at reduced price or used.

 

[QuantumBro]

As someone who prefers portables to console fuck no.

We're quickly approaching a time where non-1st party handheld are going to be a thing. We'll probably have PS4/Xbox One level performance at $300-400 within 5-10 years.

GAF seem to really resent mobiles existence, so I'm not sure GAF would consider yet another japanese developer going mobile exclusive a huge get

Silly me for forgetting there's only Nintendo consoles and mobile.

There's a lot of factors that will affect Nintendo going third party. They would have to learn how to manage multiple different systems architecture if they wanted to release on Xbox, PS4 and PC, even if they are very similar. Various franchises would probably be stripped away or not seen again at all and they would be down to their main sellers like Mario and Zelda. Their portfolio of game releases would be even slimmer than it is now in terms of diversity in order for them to make up the profits that they would have had with hardware sales included with software.

If someone likes portable system (unless Sony is willing to do a Vita 2 for some reason...), then they would have no portable system since Nintendo games would be going to non-portable devices except their mobile games, which are different than their main releases.

Nintendo loses money on their hardware, so switching to software only would save them on that and R&D costs. I think you're also underestimating how these games would sell on Non-Nintendo platforms.

See above for portable.

I rather want nintendo to stay forever in the hardware businesses. Because they make things unique and better. It's better for MS to quit and go 3rd party like they already planning to do. This because it's to similar to ps4.

Also when nintendo doesn't make hardware its dead like Sega.

Remember that Nintendo still has the strongest hardware sales with 3ds. Much more than ps4. We know switch is a handheld replacement that you can connect on tv. So it could just do way better than 3ds,because their marketing is wsy better and they can focus on one device and make more games for it. Also it seems to work.

Nintendo pushes gimmicks at the cost of performance and price. Those gimmicks are basically abandoned by most developers within 1-2 years, just look at Zelda on WiiU. HD rumble will suffer the same fate and should not have been done if it's just going to increase the cost of a controller by $20. We also get an extremely closed down platform that can play games and not much else, till it gets hacked.

Nothing is wrong with making a regular console that play Nintendo games well at a low price. Instead we're stuck with the Switch which represents the worse of console and handheld gaming.

And Sega is far from dead...

 

[KAL2006]

I'd pay. It's the cost of portability.

Da fuck

The whole point of Switch is that all games are portable. Why not jack the price up by £10 for all games. Splatoon 2 should be £10 compared to PS4 games then.

Switch is designed in a way developer makes a game for one system and works in 2 ways. They are not asking developer to make 2 versions. Hell Sony has developers making 2 versions on PS4/Vita and has cross buy for free for alot of games.

 

[Maxinas]

Hah, no sale.

 

[franklyshankly]

I feel like in your mind this sounded more clever than when you typed it out

Well there was that one guy who said it was good Nintendo never dropped their prices lol.

 

[pretty done]

I rather want nintendo to stay forever in the hardware businesses. Because they make things unique and better. It's better for MS to quit and go 3rd party like they already planning to do. This because it's to similar to ps4.

People want Nintendo to go third party cuz they make great games.

What benefit would there be if MS went third party? They may as well leave the business because they wouldn't be able to last on their software lineup. It's awful outside of Halo and Forza.

 

[RichiRamjag]

But if Switch bombs and forces Nintendo to go third party, don't we all win?

Hell no and all the craziness over wishing them failure to do so is getting ridiculous around here. Real scumbag shit to say.

 

[TheSpoiler]

It comes with the home console version and the mobile version. You pay a premium.

No it doesn't because there is only one version being made.

 

[Okami Haundo]

All of them bad. Pricing one SKU that much higher while late is reasonable. As someone said here, you risk share the price among all the skus so the value is consistent. And if the reasons for the price jump are that severe than the port just was not a good idea.

But there is no actual good reason here. They just want to gauge consumers

Right, I'm not saying they have a "good" reason for doing this at all. Just that there are definitely more factors at play than just the price of the media format the physical release is on.

As you pointed out, they could definitely go for price parity on all platforms and decided not to. I just don't tend towards the rational of wanting to screw people over right out of the gate. Others like to jump to that conclusion, but it really doesn't matter in the end as long as we're both on the same boat of not buying the game to send a message.

 

[BRocknRolla]

I don't think its Nintendos job to mandate pricing to indies when the market is more than capable of doing so.
I also don't think it would be fair to indies who want to get 'late ports' onto the switch for reasons not of their own making that such a hypothetical clause would price cap that port at whatever sale price it is currently at elsewhere.

I think for the sake of Nintendo's image and long-term viability, it would be crazy to think they wouldn't enforce a price parity for the same game. If it's an enhanced version of some kind, fine, but that's not what we're seeing here.

 

[DeuceGamer]

I mean people are paying 50buck for bomberman and 1-2 switch because of the weak ass launch.

That's not a good comparison. It would be like paying $50 on Bomberman/1,2, Switch after it released a few weeks/months earlier for $40 on PS4/X1.

 

[LordRaptor]

Nintendo loses money on their hardware, so switching to software only would save them on that and R&D costs.

...

Nintendo pushes gimmicks at the cost of performance and price.

...

HD rumble ... should not have been done if it's just going to increase the cost of a controller by $20.

receipts.gif

 

[Midas]

This is a game aimed at hardcore-audience. The kind of audience that goes on GAF, or like ranting on Twitter (like they currently are). You can be sure this will costs a good chunk of bad buzz against the Switch version.

Well, I have to admit that you make a point. But it will still sell.

And guys, come on, don't forget that it's a free market.

 

[AmuroChan]

Nintendo doesn't set prices for Third Party games though.

Well, they do kind of. If Sony/Microsoft takes 30% from 3rd party games and Nintendo wants 45%, 3rd party publishers are going to charge more for the Nintendo sku in order to make the same profit margin.

 

[emb]

Price increase is unfortuante, but the late port is the real kicker. I could never pick it up and think of it as a proper NS title when it released on other systems first.

Sometimes I have reason to overlook the 'original platform' detail, but in this case, I'm not sure I do. Handheld mode is a cool bonus I suppose, but not enough to sway me in that direction.

 

[calc84maniac]

Nintendo loses money on their hardware, so switching to software only would save them on that and R&D costs.

They're not losing money on the Switch. They lost money for a little while after the massive 3DS price drop, and I'm not sure about Wii U... but they've definitely said they're not selling the Switch at a loss.

 

[mentallyinept]

Should be the same price digitally.

Not surprised it's more expensive for a physical copy on the Switch as the carts cost way more than a disc. Nicalis pegged thier cost of manufacture at 4 bucks for Binding of Isaac. So it should only like 5 bucks more not 10.

 

[tolkir]

For comparison, on amazon UK, the situation is very smiliar:

Look Amazon Spain

Puyo Puyo Tetris (Switch) #14 - Better position than Nier and Mass Effect.
Puyo Puyo Tetris (PS4) #1645

Lego City Undercover (Switch) #110 - 2 euros cheaper than PS4 and One versions right now
Lego City Undercover (Xbox One) #1563
Lego City Undercover (PS4) #7766

 

[DVCY201]

Everyone blaming Puyo Puyo when it's only physical on the Switch with key chains that cost more. Like, the digital price is the same on PS4 and Switch. So this situation is totally different.

Doesn't bother me though, because two can play that game. You gonna charge $10 more? It's sale time.

 

[ToysAndMoreClub]

We're quickly approaching a time where non-1st party handheld are going to be a thing. We'll probably have PS4/Xbox One level performance at $300-400 within 5-10 years.



Silly me for forgetting there's only Nintendo consoles and mobile.



Nintendo loses money on their hardware, so switching to software only would save them on that and R&D costs. I think you're also underestimating how these games would sell on Non-Nintendo platforms.

See above for portable.



Nintendo pushes gimmicks at the cost of performance and price. Those gimmicks are basically abandoned by most developers within 1-2 years, just look at Zelda on WiiU. HD rumble will suffer the same fate and should not have been done if it's just going to increase the cost of a controller by $20. We also get an extremely closed down platform that can play games and not much else, till it gets hacked.

Nothing is wrong with making a regular console that play Nintendo games well at a low price. Instead we're stuck with the Switch which represents the worse of console and handheld gaming.

And Sega is far from dead...

And what does this have to do with RiME being $10 more on Switch?

 

[ckaneo]

Sounds like they just want to take advantage of Switch owners desire to buy anything to play early on.

I need a real explanation for this. Give us the cartridge excuse at least. But then they can't explain digital. Fuck them.

 

[SmokedMeat]

It comes with the home console version and the mobile version. You pay a premium.

It comes with one cartridge. Not two.

I shouldn't be fleeced on buying a game because my hardware is versatile.

 

[Ossom]

If you are there day one when there is nothing else to buy then try it on, but not a few months after when you are releasing on other plats first for cheaper.

You can't Nintendo tax if you are not Nintendo!

 

[sixteen-bit]

Portable tax? Smh.

 

[PapaEmeritus]

First of all, in my opinion, not just this, but ALL digital games should be cheaper than retail. That should be across the board. Secondly, the fact they are charging more for this because they know there may be slim picking and people will pay it, Tequila can fuck off. I'll check it out on Steam in December for 80% off.

 

[psyfi]

I'll buy the physical Switch version and then resell it when I'm done. No way I'm dropping $40 on a digital indie title without more confidence in it being good.

 

[ramparter]

Nintendo fans love justifying higher prices for everything, so this should be fine. Think of the higher resale value for the game thanks to this!

Yes. Thats why all big publishers crap sell the most on nintendo platforms... oh wait.

 

[erawsd]

If they would've came out and mentioned specific Switch features and how they make use of them, it would certainly soften the blow. But to outright say it's $10 more on Switch cause development is expensive is bs.

Only thing I can imagine is that they don't believe Switch sales are going to be strong anyway, so they are looking to recoup a bit more from the few that do buy it to justify the port.

At least that is typically why these types of new console "screw jobs" happen. Its not because devs are just trying to be dicks, they're trying to balance out the risk of porting to such a small user base.

 

[Kodaman]

lmao that explanation. What a load of bs

 

[Megatron]

Sorry Rime but you will not be mine.


It's $39 in US for Switch. $29 for other platforms.

Well thats high, but if it reviews well im still in for the switch version most likely. Love that portability.

 

[Phife Dawg]

Wth? No buy then.

 

[Doug Heffernan]

kinda glad Sony drop them.

Me too, now I get to play the game!

 

[essenn]

$55 in Canada. No thanks

 

[ToysAndMoreClub]

Only thing I can imagine is that they don't believe Switch sales are going to be strong anyway, so they are looking to recoup a bit more from the few that do buy it to justify the port.

At least that is typically why these types of new console "screw jobs" happen. Its not because devs are just trying to be dicks, they're trying to balance out the risk of porting to such a small user base.

And making it $10 more expensive and releasing later will in turn make even more people not buy it. This was one of the games I was looking forward to, but now it's further down on my priority list.

 

[Dark Ninja]

So customers on Nintendo platforms should pay more because....?

They definitely shouldn't just don't support devs who do increase their price compared to other platforms or if the price is not worth what is they are delivering content wise. Stop it now before it becomes a trend.

 

[KingV]

The same reason that angry birds for PS4 and Xbox one was $50 at launch

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Right, I'm not saying they have a "good" reason for doing this at all. Just that there are definitely more factors at play than just the price of the media format the physical release is on.

As you pointed out, they could definitely go for price parity on all platforms and decided not to. I just don't tend towards the rational of wanting to screw people over right out of the gate. Others like to jump to that conclusion, but it really doesn't matter in the end as long as we're both on the same boat of not buying the game to send a message.

Awe okay. Gotchu. My bad.

 

[Insert Disk Two]

Shortly afterward, RiME will launch on Nintendo Switch™, allowing players to take the adventure with them anywhere on the go utilizing the system’s portability, as a physical and digital release with a suggested retail price of $39.99 / €44.99 / £39.99.

Are they implying that the Switch version costs more because you are getting "2 versions in 1" (portable and home version)?

 

[GulAtiCa]

Well, they do kind of. If Sony/Microsoft takes 30% from 3rd party games and Nintendo wants 45%, 3rd party publishers are going to charge more for the Nintendo sku in order to make the same profit margin.

Nintendo only does 30%

 

[BRocknRolla]

Only thing I can imagine is that they don't believe Switch sales are going to be strong anyway, so they are looking to recoup a bit more from the few that do buy it to justify the port.

At least that is typically why these types of new console "screw jobs" happen. Its not because devs are just trying to be dicks, they're trying to balance out the risk of porting to such a small user base.

But this sort of stuff is based on a flawed logic that can't be parsed our properly if sales aren't good.

1) Sales are bad because the userbase isn't interested in 3rd party games/ these type of games/ etc.

2) Sales are bad because users are being charged too much for the product and what it offers.

3) Sales are bad because the userbase feels burned by the devs for charging them more than others.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Hm.

I wouldn't have gotten this on the Switch, anyway, but I'm not going to get it on anything if the developer is going to fuck around like this.

 

[Sendou]

Maybe it's because they're using external studio to port the game over? Regardless I'll just wait for a deep sale. Maybe Humble Bundle or something.

 

[GabeTheGrouch76]

it's annoying but if it reviews really well then I'll get it on Switch when it goes on sale.



what did they do shady? any link?

If leaked reports/rumors on the game's development are to be believed, TequilaWorks wasn't exactly being aux fait with Sony on whether they actually had a tangible project in development after two years of presumed development provided by Sony funding. These reports coincided shortly after Sony washed their hands of the project and sold the developer back the publishing rights to Rime (which are now with Six Foot and Grey Box). (It is also worth noting that before Sony picked up the project, Rime was first pitched to MS, who passed on it.)

For what it's worth, TequilaWorks says on their behalf that they announced the game only a few months after they started development, and admits that they may have unveiled the game "too early". They also say this is the reason why they hadn't shown anything about the game following the reveal for the next two years.

 

[Sniffynose]

Pff well I was going to grab this for the switch, now it's a zero sale.

Switch will live or die based on price parity, if you can buy Indie games on steam new for $10 nobody is going to pay $40 for it on the switch.

Good way to kill sales on a platform that makes sense for games like this.

 

[Doc_Drop]

I'd pay. It's the cost of portability.

It's the same game,what changes are made that justify a 10 dollar price increase per game? if you're meaning the porting cost the devs should be the ones to eat that cost

 

[Robobandit]

Was looking forward to this, was happy to see that a version is coming to Switch.. but I won't support these pricing tactics.

Will buy on PC for $5 in a year or two if I still care by then.

 

[AquaWateria]

How did we go from this to wanting Nintendo go third party?

Anyway I really don't know why this publisher is trying to screw over their customers.

 

[Ac30]

Shortly afterward, RiME will launch on Nintendo Switch™, allowing players to take the adventure with them anywhere on the go utilizing the system’s portability, as a physical and digital release with a suggested retail price of $39.99 / €44.99 / £39.99.

Are they implying that the Switch version costs more because you are getting "2 versions in 1" (portable and home version)?

Since the PS4 allows remote play on Vita, they should charge them the same amirite

 

[oakenhild]

Was looking forward to this, was happy to see that a version is coming to Switch.. but I won't support these pricing tactics.

Will buy on PC for $5 in a year or two if I still care by then.

I'm surprised Nintendo doesn't have a pricing parity clause for multi-platform games.

No way I'm paying more. I'd buy it on Steam, but would rather have it on Switch. Will just pass on it unless I find it in the bargain bin someday.

 

[Herb Alpert]

Nintendo fans love justifying higher prices for everything, so this should be fine. Think of the higher resale value for the game thanks to this!

Those damned Nintendo fans *shakes first*