Support NeoGAF

[shouamabane]

LEGO City is a fun game ruined by load times. I love that it's being ported.

Switch games are more valuable to me because you don't have to install them. Load times are very nice on the games I've played so far. And they're portable. I love being able to pay an extra few bucks for that stuff.

 

[MaverickHunterX]

Some of them do, some of them don't. But regardless, that's not really the point.

But that's the thing, it is kinda the point.

My argument was that this version of MSM is the exact same as any of the other versions. No better graphics, or load times. No extra levels or Easter eggs or anything of the like. This isn't a single reason to pay $10 more for this version, besides the half hearted claim that "you can play on the go."

Now, a lot of those "upgrades" were definitely overpriced (considering how Capcom has been putting any or all other copies to shame price wise), but is it fair to say that each of those had at least one feature improved from its former version?

 

[TheSpoiler]

LEGO City is a fun game ruined by load times. I love that it's being ported.

Switch games are more valuable to me because you don't have to install them. Load times are very nice on the games I've played so far. And they're portable. I love being able to pay an extra few bucks for that stuff.

Oh that's cool. I didn't know you were actually paying extra for features that were pretty standard for the machine. They should put that on the back of the box!

 

[Nicko]

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.

I understand others views, and that I'm in the minority in this board, but I'm speaking from personal experience. I literally have no time to play games at home these days with crazy demanding job, wife in med school, taking care of everything at home, etc. The ability of the switch to deliver a console-quality gaming experience wherever I can grab some free time (over my lunch break at work currently) has literally changed my current gaming lifestyle. This console fits wonderfully into my life right now, and for the opportunity to continue to play games in this way, I'm happy to pay extra for the same game available on my ps4, which I would be able to play maybe once or twice a month.

 

[Radical Edward]

I can play remote play on Vita for free...

Not to mention crossbuy

 

[CaviarMeths]

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...

I'm not following you here. You're going to have to show your work. I need to see the steps you took to get from

1) a publisher has decided to charge extra for the Switch version of their game
to
2) I hope Sony doesn't start charging extra for remote play

Somewhere between (1) and (2) you have a step where Nintendo became the villain. Where is it?

 

[MaverickHunterX]

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.

You make an excellent point, but you aren't talking about ports, correct? The idea of the OP is that we are talking about old ports being priced higher at no obvious reason. Hell, if COD part 10 (or whatever number they're on) is $60 and releases same day as PS4/XBone, I'd understand, and at truth, I'd probably grab the Switch version for all the reasons you said above - save for if it's a horrid port.

EDIT - I ask because I don't Twitter, but I'd love it if a GAFfer would send this to telltale themselves. I'd love to hear their perspective, considering they're not in the same boat as the indie companies discussed earlier.

 

[eighty(one)]

This, this thread and the Rime thread is another thing some of us talked about before the Switch launched as a possible hurdle. Pricing.

Semantics. Non issue.

The pricing is a non thing. I can't fathom the lowered expectations.

Games didn't cost less, on PS2, because it was less powerful during it's gen. Developers don't price on system power.

Console games are AND have been priced at $60 for years.

The switch is a console you can undock and take with you; the same cannot be said of the XB1 and PS4.

The fact that the system is portable and not as powerful doesn't mean it's games are worth less.

Expect pricing parity with the other console and if a game is priced lower than that, consider it a nice surprise.

EDIT for response post above quoting me:

Ports, depends on if the port is finally physical. Nintendo gamers like collecting a library - probably more so than other system owners. If a port or digital game is available physically (that was only digital before) - take into account manufacturing, packaging and shipping. That cost something to a publisher that Digital does not.

 

[Hero]

Blame the publisher if you want to be mad at someone. Vote with your wallet.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

But that's the thing, it is kinda the point.

My argument was that this version of MSM is the exact same as any of the other versions. No better graphics, or load times. No extra levels or Easter eggs or anything of the like. This isn't a single reason to pay $10 more for this version, besides the half hearted claim that "you can play on the go."

Now, a lot of those "upgrades" were definitely overpriced (considering how Capcom has been putting any or all other copies to shame price wise), but is it fair to say that each of those had at least one feature improved from its former version?

I think you're confused. I agree with you completely. I'm not buying any Switch game that is priced higher than the exact same experience on another platform (though I will make an exception and gladly pay a small premium if a digital-only indie is released in physical form, as that's a pretty normal practice across the board). I was talking to another poster about something different he brought up and you responded to my conversation with him.

 

[MaverickHunterX]

I think you're confused. I agree with you completely. I was talking to another poster about something different he brought up and you responded to my response to him.

Oops! I misread the context. My bad

 

[LordOcidax]

Blame the publisher if you want to be mad at someone. Vote with your wallet.

This... Done.

 

[molnizzle]

Blame the publisher if you want to be mad at someone. Vote with your wallet.

I blame Nintendo for not having some sort of price parity requirement like Sony and Microsoft have.

Given their history of "maintaining the value" of their games and accessories, it makes sense that they'd take this position. Motherfuckers.

 

[Kyzer]

Wont be buying any game that does this

 

[Radical Edward]

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.

No need to remote play isaac. It is crossbuy s o i got it for free on vita when I bought it on ps4 and I can transfer all my saves.

 

[jroc74]

Vita comes included with a PS4?

People need to stop with this argument. Remote play on Vita =/= to having the hardware there. Maybe you don't realise how lucky you are but many countries such as my own don't have fast enough internet at home or on the go to stream anything above 144p (upload, usually my download is fast enough for 720p). Also as another poster above mentioned it's another expense on top of the PS4 that you don't have to worry about with the Switch.

Remote play kind of sucks IMO, as a previous owner of 3 different vitas.

Not to defend the portable tax argument cause it's dumb, but stop pretending that remote play does what the Switch does. You know it's not even close.

The point is....Sony didnt charge extra for that feature. A feature where you could play your PS4 on the go. Seeing them launching PS Now I'm kinda surprised they didnt charge for it.

What was Nintendo's answer? Sell damn near the same game on home and handheld with Wii U/3DS. Or in some cases the same game. Now for 3DS!!!

The 3DS gets basically remasters of some older games. Were they playable on the Wii U? (another question I'm legit asking)

Now compare that to playing PS4 remasters with remote play...

Sony has been doing remote play since the PSP days.....

I'm not following you here. You're going to have to show your work. I need to see the steps you took to get from

1) a publisher has decided to charge extra for the Switch version of their game
to
2) I hope Sony doesn't start charging extra for remote play

Somewhere between (1) and (2) you have a step where Nintendo became the villain. Where is it?

Sorry...let me rephrase....

I hope Sony doesnt let publishers start charging extra to use remote play for their games...

 

[rockx4]

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.

It's not that I'm expecting $30 or $40 games, I just meant the carts didn't cause weird price spikes on the DS and Vita. I'm fine with full priced games, and full priced $60 games. I just want price in line with other versions.

I'm actually fine with the price of Minecraft Story... it adds up to the same as the steam version. I'm only upset when physical releases somehow end up $10 more than other versions (Rime). Puyo Puyo Tetris only has digital price increases outside of the US release. For games like Rime, it almost feels like they're doing the physical release to price it $10 higher just so they can also sell the digital version for $10 more. If they can't justify the physical release at the same $30 price, then just do digital only. It almost feels like the carts give them an excuse to price it $10 higher for digital also.

Edit: I'm also completely fine with "complete edition" ports being full price. It's not like we haven't been seeing them already. Full price for Mario Kart 8D with all DLC is perfectly acceptable to me (I'm buying it).

 

[Josue]

Why should games cost more just because they can be played portably? They only develop the game on one system, so it doesn't take extra work.

If I'm paying extra money because I can play games at home or on the go, it would be to Nintendo because their system gives me the ability to do that.

People really justifying this shit lol

 

[LewieP]

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.

So you can't cite any games that bundled some DLC then more than doubled the release price on a new platform. Got it.

 

[Kyzer]

I am actually willing to buy the switch version of multiplats, unlike Wii U. I havent bought Dragonball Xenoverse 2 yet because I want the switch version. Im willing to play on a lower gfx setting to take it on the go....making them more expensive just overwhelmingly tips the scales back in other platforms favor

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

Many major publishers are asshats who are looking to milk customers who just bought their fancy newly released gaming platform, especially with limited game options. I mean, we got Square Enix in Japan planning to sell three ROMs of 20+ year old SNES and Gameboy games for 4800JPY (which would likely translate to 40USD) and they and others will get away with it as long as they can and if they don't sell they won't blame themselves they'll spin it as people just not being interested in playing their games on the platform and avoid releasing more.

 

[zidanelucis]

Why should games cost more just because they can be played portably? They only develop the game on one system, so it doesn't take extra work.

If I'm paying extra money because I can play games at home or on the go, it would be to Nintendo because their system gives me the ability to do that.

People really justifying this shit lol

Nintendo fanboys are pretty much ignorant and oblivious to everything aside Nintendo. And this is coming from a lifelong Nintendo fan. This shouldn't really be surprising. I've seen people like this in this topic alone. Not only justifying this bullshit that developers are pulling but trying to attack Sony in the process when the two don't correlate whatsoever.

Games should not be price gauged because they are portable. That's the most desperate damage controlling excuse I've ever heard. If that was the case, Vita games would be fucking $60.

There is absolutely no silver lining in this picture. This is straight bullshit, no matter what you think. That's reality. If these games are worth more than other systems...then they should also accompany that by adding every feature the other systems have + and even more to justify the exclusive content. Of course, no one's doing that and these are just straight ports, albeit, severely downgraded ports of games already available on much more powerful systems with all DLC included with it and not relegated to a premium.

Point is: Stop defending crap like this. They'll do it more if you pander to it. Stop buying the games to show them you won't support this kind of practice.

 

[EDarkness]

I blame Nintendo for not having some sort of price parity requirement like Sony and Microsoft have.

Given their history of "maintaining the value" of their games and accessories, it makes sense that they'd take this position. Motherfuckers.

Sheesh. People want to blame Nintendo for everything. Maybe you just like bitching about Nintendo? I mean, if I kicked your dog, but I was using Nike shoes, you'd blame Nike for me doing that? Come on, man. This is all the publisher. If they want to gouge players, that's 100% on them. Nintendo has nothing to do with this. Don't stand for that crap and bust their chops for it. They're the ones who decide how much to price their own game and they also decide the quality and features in it.

Many major publishers are asshats who are looking to milk customers who just bought their fancy newly released gaming platform, especially with limited game options. I mean, we got Square Enix in Japan planning to sell three ROMs of 20+ year old SNES and Gameboy games for 4800JPY (which would likely translate to 40USD) and they and others will get away with it as long as they can and if they don't sell they won't blame themselves they'll spin it as people just not being interested in playing their games on the platform and avoid releasing more.

Companies are always looking to price their products as high as the market will allow. If they think they can get away with it, they will. However, if player buy it, then they were justified in their pricing. Personally, I have no problem buying the Mana Collection for $40-45. It's a fair price in my mind, so I guess that makes me part of the problem. Not everyone will see it that way, but with the way the price of physical games drops so fast, people who want a lower price will eventually get their wish. My thing is I want price parity. If one version is $50 with X content, then I think all versions with X content should be the same. But if one version is $50 with X content plus more, then charging more makes sense. I think most of us agree with that.

It should be noted that everyone has a different value rating for any product that they buy. Some people will be fine with the extra cost for whatever reasons. Maybe you or I don't agree, but that doesn't change their perception of value for the product.

 

[Radical Edward]

The portability is the system's main gimmick/selling point. The wii didn't charge more to use its motion controls. You're paying more for a system that's 1 - 1.5 gens behind in terms of performance because you can play awesome games on the go. You shouldnt have to pay more for old games that are cheaper on the other systems.

 

[unrealist]

No need to remote play isaac. It is crossbuy s o i got it for free on vita when I bought it on ps4 and I can transfer all my saves.

I am not talking about remote play for Issac. It is a poster above who is indirectly comparing Switch portability with Remote Play on Vita. FYI i have Vita too and got Isaac free via PSN. But Vita's version doesn't include everything (yet) and runs slower.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

This doesn't even make sense when handheld, cartridge games have been traditionally cheaper for the history of the industry.

The media has never been cheaper, the games were smaller in scope. The Switch is bringing HD fidelity to handhelds for the first time, so ports of existing console games carry the same risk/reward as they do on PS4.

The game budgets were really so much cheaper to get over the higher price of cartridges and then some?

Yes, yes they were. There were only a handful of 3DS games on par budget wise with most AAA HD console games. Same for the previous generation on DS.

 

[unrealist]

Sheesh. People want to blame Nintendo for everything. Maybe you just like bitching about Nintendo? I mean, if I kicked your dog, but I was using Nike shoes, you'd blame Nike for me doing that? Come on, man. This is all the publisher. If they want to gouge players, that's 100% on them. Nintendo has nothing to do with this. Don't stand for that crap and bust their chops for it. They're the ones who decide how much to price their own game and they also decide the quality and features in it.

This is just a PS4 vs Switch thread based on what I am reading. And for typing the above, you will soon be crucified as a Nintendo fanboy.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

Nintendo needs to do something about this. This is how third party support dies.

 

[Seik]

All I can say is I would have bought Isaac, but I'm not paying 40 for a flash game.

You're like one of my coworkers when I received the game.

''You paid 50$ for this?! Is in pixels, its worth nothing.''

LOL

 

[eighty(one)]

If that was the case, Vita games would be fucking $60.

If they had been, Sony (and larger publishers) may have made worth, any profitable effort and the system would be alive/thriving.

I say this as an owner of Vita ---> Vita lime /white JPN slim

 

[OrbitalBeard]

So you can't cite any games that bundled some DLC then more than doubled the release price on a new platform. Got it.

The MSRP for most games drops over time. Not the case with Isaac. If it had, you'd have a point . It hasn't, so you don't. Isaac + all DLC is $36 on Steam. It's $40 on Switch, likely due to manufacturing costs of the physical version. It's not $36 on the eShop because retailers tend to enforce price parity. Though it's also possible it's an extra $4 because Nicalis knows they can get away with a small bump, due to it being a launch window game.

I've countered every new angle you've presented and every moved goalpost you're set up quite easily. You're annoyed because you can't buy the game without its DLC. I've explained how this is very common with older games on new platforms. But you're also annoyed because the price is $40. I've explained why. Anything else?

 

[CaviarMeths]

Sorry...let me rephrase....

I hope Sony doesnt let publishers start charging extra to use remote play for their games...

I'm still not seeing the connection between "publisher charges extra for game" and "platform holder charges extra for service."

Maybe a couple dozen more sets of ellipses will help me understand.

 

[EDarkness]

This is just a PS4 vs Switch thread based on what I am reading. And for typing the above, you will soon be crucified as a Nintendo fanboy.

I don't care whether people think that or not. I'm just looking at the facts here and thinking about the pricing of my own game. I'm glad that Nintendo doesn't force any restrictions on what I can price my game at and I have 100% control over whatever it costs. I could try to gouge people, but I have a soul and will be looking at a fair price. That doesn't mean everyone or every publisher will do so. I'd much rather have that then constraints on my game's pricing.

My point is simply that the blame needs to be put on the person or publisher who decides the pricing. Nintendo has nothing to do with that.

Nintendo needs to do something about this. This is how third party support dies.

In my opinion, third parties are dumb or just really don't give a damn. Nothing Nintendo (or Sony or Microsoft) can do about it. As consumers we can pay or not pay. If they send their games to die, then that's on them. Luckily we don't have to buy their game. If you feel like you MUST buy their game and you do buy it, then that's on you and it just justifies their pricing scheme.

 

[TheSpoiler]

If they had been, Sony and larger publisher made have made profitable effort and the system would be alive.

Exactly! Why Sony didn't do this when their competitor was running games for 40 bucks as well, setting a standard for that scene, is ridiculous. It's almost as if they were leaving money on the table.

 

[LewieP]

The MSRP for most games drops over time. Not the case with Isaac. If it had, you'd have a point . It hasn't, so you don't.

I've countered every new angle you've presented and every new goalpost move you're set up quite easily.

No, you've completely failed to address my original point.

I'm well aware that time exist and that prices drop over time.

I said that no other games have used a release on a new platform and bundling some DLC as a justification for more than doubling the launch price.

You might be fine with this scenario, but my feeling is that a lot of people would prefer if this didn't become a standard operating procedure for people porting to the Switch. Microsoft and Sony have policies in place to prevent this sort of thing, but Nintendo do now, and so it's their customers who are paying the price.

 

[eighty(one)]

Exactly! Why Sony didn't do this when their competitor was running games for 40 bucks as well, setting a standard for that scene, is ridiculous. It's almost as if they were leaving money on the table.

Well consider what could have been:

We may have had the portable Bioshock or whatnot, bigger and better western support and AAA franchises, if pricing were more inline with the cost of those efforts on the more comparable systems.

I love 3DS, I love the library and 3/4 of that love is the 3D effect...but most of the games look like shit.

If Vita games looked that sub par, yes $40 is like a budget release in comparison.

Had Sony chased the console margins, Vita may have had that Lost Planet 2 demo come to fruition...

 

[OrbitalBeard]

No, you've completely failed to address my original point.

I'm well aware that time exist and that prices drop over time.

I said that no other games have used a release on a new platform and bundling some DLC as a justification for more than doubling the launch price.

You might be fine with this scenario, but my feeling is that a lot of people would prefer if this didn't become a standard operating procedure for people porting to the Switch. Microsoft and Sony have policies in place to prevent this sort of thing, but Nintendo do now, and so it's their customers who are paying the price.

You're being incredibly disingenuous and I've explained why multiple times.

The Afterbirth + package on Switch is not double the cost of the Afterbirth + package on other platforms and it's not uncommon whatsoever for devs and publishers to skip on offering vanilla versions of older titles on new platforms. I can no longer engage with the type of person that is willfully dishonest in the arguments they're making. There's a reason why no one else is making a big deal out of this and that's because it has almost nothing to do with the actual, legitimate pricing issue presented by the OP.

 

[TheSpoiler]

Well consider what could have been:

We may have had the portable Bioshock or whatnot, bigger and better western support and AAA franchises, if pricing were more inline with the cost of those efforts on the more comparable systems.

I love 3DS, I love the library and 3/4 of that love is the 3D effect...but most of the games look like shit.

If Vita games looked that sub par, yes $40 is like a budget release in comparison.

Had Sony chased the console margins, Vita may have had that Lost Planet 2 demo come to fruition...

Unless you can convince consumers to buy portable games at what is considered a premium, then all the neat western AAA games in the world aren't going to matter for shit. Consumers have a limit, and part of that is shaped by the competitors. It's up to the publishers to scale the cost of game development with consumer limits, not increase them to make money.

I know I bought more because the games were cheaper on the Vita. If they were anything more than 40, I probably wouldn't. In fact, being cheaper than the console counterpart is why I double dipped many times through.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Well consider what could have been:

We may have had the portable Bioshock or whatnot, bigger and better western support and AAA franchises, if pricing were more inline with the cost of those efforts on the more comparable systems.

I love 3DS, I love the library and 3/4 of that love is the 3D effect...but most of the games look like shit.

No one was paying $60 to play inferior versions of PS360 games in 2012 lol

 

[LewieP]

You're being incredibly disingenuous and I've explained why multiple times.

The Afterbirth + package on Switch is not double the cost of the Afterbirth + package on other platforms and it's not uncommon whatsoever to not offer vanilla versions of older titles on new platforms. I can no longer engage with the type of person that is willfully dishonest in the argumenst they're making. There's a reason why no one else is making a big deal out of this and it has almost nothing to do with the actual issue presented by the OP.

OK. But you have failed to give any example that is the same as BOI on Switch.

In cases where a vanilla version is not available on a new platform, the version with bundled DLC does not typically launch at more than double the original price. I don't know why you aren't willing to either accept this simple fact, or present a counter example.

 

[NFreak]

I just don't understand why it would come down to cartridge costs if some games have price parity with other consoles. Has Been Heroes is going to be 20 dollars on every system and if Wonder Boy ends up coming out physically the devs said it would be the same price as the digital versions on Switch as well as other consoles. There's not a lot of consistency here.

 

[13ruce]

New Console tax probably. I hope it's just that otherwise pretty dumb yeah.

 

[EDarkness]

I just don't understand why it would come down to cartridge costs if some games have price parity with other consoles. Has Been Heroes is going to be 20 dollars on every system and if Wonder Boy ends up coming out physically the devs said it would be the same price as the digital versions on Switch as well as other consoles. There's not a lot of consistency here.

It's simply because publishers decide the pricing of their game. There are some who are trying to take advantage of the NS market by charging more. Consumers can accept that or not. At least some companies actually want all versions of their game to do well....

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

Portable mode isn't a premium.

 

[Spukc]

Nintendo really, really needs to change their policy on this, and enact pricing regulations. They might take a hit on cartridge costs, but this is the kind of problem that can hamstring a console's success, which would be a far, far worse problem for them.

Eh why it well sort itself out in the end.
People will ignore games and the games will be in sale.

Just as i pick up almost all first party 3ds games below 30 bucks

 

[Chezzymann]

Interesting how people are saying portable tax when historically portable games are cheaper than console ones

 

[Bowl0l]

Eh why it well sort itself out in the end.
People will ignore games and the games will be in sale.

Just as i pick up almost all first party 3ds games below 30 bucks

Doesn't happen to all countries. We have Maxsoft in Asia, a cut throat distributor who still sell WiiUs at $340. All of Switch sales will depend on Japan, EU and US.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

OK. But you have failed to give any example that is the same as BOI on Switch.

In cases where a vanilla version is not available on a new platform, the version with bundled DLC does not typically launch at more than double the original price. I don't know why you aren't willing to either accept this simple fact, or present a counter example.

Bioshock PS3 launched a year after the Xbox version with additional content at full price. By that time the 360 version was heavily discounted. Ditto MGS2 Substance on Xbox releasing one year after MGS2 on PS2. Boom.

 

[LordOcidax]

So... Now Nintendo is evil because they are not controlling the price of third party games??? And according to some people this is bad for their relation with the third party publishers?? Lol.... Really.. c'mon guys, you can do better than this...BTW, If they do that, i already can see a thread in Gaf full of Nintendo is doomed comments. If you dont want to support this practice, dont buy the game.. Simple. I am pretty sure that majority publishers are not going to do this.

 

[LewieP]

Bioshock PS3 launched a year after the Xbox version with additional content at full price. By that time the 360 version was heavily discounted. Ditto MGS2 Substance on Xbox releasing one year after MGS2 on PS2. Boom.

You didn't read my post. I am talking about comparing the launch prices.