Support NeoGAF

[DarthButcher]

If there's a Nintendo Selects for Switch (which, why wouldn't there be) then there's no reason to assume the prices of games won't drop eventually when they become Select titles. Unless you're also including 3rd party games, in which case yeah I doubt they'll drop very far too.

There will be, but in 2038.

 

[Soroc]

exactly, this is Capcom and Konami testing the waters to see how much they can milk fans for

Exactly! This is why I don't understand the BOI backlash. BOI seems pretty onpoint price parity wise whether you agree with the value or not.

I can't speak for bomberman but from what little I saw, it seems Konami is testing the pricing waters of a new console launch.

Capcom seems to be the greediest imo with the SSF2 remake/remaster/whatever they want to call it. I actually like the fact they went SSF2 BUT the price just doesn't compute for me. Drop the price by 25 bucks and I would start to consider/ drop it 30 and I'd buy it at launch.

I don't buy a ton of games at launch anymore because I've realized I buy they just to have other things to try on the console and not necessarily b/c I'm going to play them. This launch I'm just getting Zelda and 1-2 Switch (got this for 30, wouldn't pay more then that). And I'll pick up BOI and Snipperclips down the road a little. Any other games I just wait for sales.

 

[FarFromAnyGame]

It's been a thing with Sony. Ratchet was $40 even though they could easily sell it at $60.

And $50 for 1 2 switch isn't flexible. It's called rip off pricing.

 

[Famassu]

It is pretty flexible, but not in the way you think OP. Those aren't games that could have cost $60 but were made cheaper. They're games that should have cost $15-30 that were made more expensive, since this gen Nintendo seems intent on nickel and diming everything.

Games are always more expensive or sold at RRP rather than having relatively big pre-order discounts at launch and the first 1-1,5 years afterwards. There are too few owners of the platform around so publishers & retailers have to inflate prices some or keep the high RRP so that they'd have even the slightest chance of making money. There's also less competition so prices often stay high longer because of that too.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

Exactly! This is why I don't understand the BOI backlash. BOI seems pretty onpoint price parity wise whether you agree with the value or not.

The backlash seems pretty understandable to me.

1) It's a late port that is more expensive (even though it's just 10%) than the game+DLC on other platforms.
2) You can only buy the bundled version on Switch and there's no discount for buying the bundle. On other platforms, you can buy the game for $15 and decide later whether or not you want to spend $21 to get the DLC.
3) The base game has been out for over 2 years on other platforms and there have been a number of chances to get it and the DLC at discounted rates.

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

The backlash seems pretty understandable to me.

1) It's a late port that is more expensive (even though it's just 10%) than the game+DLC on other platforms.
2) You can only buy the bundled version on Switch and there's no discount for buying the bundle. On other platforms, you can buy the game for $15 and decide later whether or not you want to spend $21 to get the DLC.
3) The base game has been out for over 2 years on other platforms and there have been a number of chances to get it and the DLC at discounted rates.

It's essentially Minecraft all over again.

 

[Shanlei91]

They should really introduce a lower $30 for titles like "1-2 Switch" (still too high for me at that price point) and things like "Binding of Isaac"

The prices are like this because of console launch tax. Once Skyrim, etc. come out the games we think cost too much will drop and similar games will launch at a more appropriate price.

Can't fault publishers for trying to get as much money as possible asap. 1-2 Switch will probably be $30 by May.

 

[WordAssassin]

1-2 Switch will probably be $30 by May.

When has Nintendo EVER dropped the price of their first party software that quickly?

 

[notaskwid]

Are they really charging 50 dollars for fucking Street Fighter 2?

 

[PrimeBeef]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "flex" pricing never went away. There are planet of non full price games on all systems. Most are usually digital indies, but there seems to be a lot of flexibility in prices today.

 

[noshten]

It will be even more of a thing once publishers won't be able to abuse launch drought as much.

I think you'll see plenty of $30 retail Switch games as time goes on.

Totally, I fully expect to get Bomberman R at $30 by the end of March because that's generally how Konami operates. In the end a sale is a sale but being an early launch title in the current situation is very advantageous to indie and the smaller 3rd party titles. There is literally a bunch of people buying a console for Zelda at launch and nothing else.
The launch also helps sets a precedent about devs/pubs deciding how to price their games on the Switch. Since most of the games are either ports with new features(DQH with local multiplayer), exclusives that take advantage of the system(8 Player Bomberman), niche games that failed to meet targets on other platforms, indies that want to get their game in front of potential customers and 1st party titles. It's a minimum risk strategy at launch and due to variation might work out. Bomberman and 1 2 Switch are definitely have the most to gain but indies that manage to launch well received games that utilize the Switch's advantages during the first few months would also be at a good position.

What frustrates me is still not knowing what type of discounts paying subs would get and whether they would be applied towards only 1st party titles or digital purchases. There is still a lot of details around pricing that's uncertain, I'd prefer I knew this information at launch.

 

[Shizuka]

For sure my man cause Breath of the Wild totally looks like standard handheld gaming fare right it should totally be $40

It's still an up-port of the Wii U version, don't fool yourself.

 

[letmetrythisname]

You know what flexible pricing I wanna see? A sub-$250 Switch without the stuff used to convert it into a home console.

 

[WordAssassin]

It's still an up-port of the Wii U version, don't fool yourself.

...Which is releasing at the same time and is also $60?

Breath of the Wild is a console game. It's being released on two consoles. Both are retailing for $60 because it's a full fledged AAA console game. Nintendo isn't wringing an extra $20 out of anything for the Switch by wording their marketing as a console you can take on the go.

If BotW was $80 on Switch, you would have a point. But it's not. It's $60. Just like it is on the Wii U. Because it's a full console game, not a smaller handheld game.

There will be smaller handheld games for Switch, and some of them will even be made by the handheld Zelda team. If Nintendo tries to price those at $60, you send me a PM and I'll concede the point, 'cause that would be BS. As it stands your point makes no sense at all, all their announced $60 games are clearly console experiences, and their announced smaller handheld-esque experience, SnipperClips, is priced at $20.

Or do you really think that BotW Switch should be $40? And SnipperClips should be free?

Edit: Also the term for a game releasing simultaneously across two generations of hardware is called Cross-Gen, not an up-port, and Nintendo is not even close to the first company to do it.

 

[phanphare]

It's still an up-port of the Wii U version, don't fool yourself.

most of the big first party Wii U games were $60 too so..

edit: beat