Why is Nintendo charging me $59.99 for a six year old game? (Diablo 3)

Oct 24, 2017
1,475
1,118
290
#1
I thought this would be a great game to try out for my new Nintendo Switch...but come on....60 frickin bucks?

And the prices of a lot of the other games on the EStore seem outrageous too. 15 dollars for Alpha Mission 2(Neo Geo) ? Who the heck is going to pay that?

Was it it with Nintendo and their pricing? Makes me think I should return the Switch and pick up a new 3DS instead....
 
Last edited:
Likes: Killer751
Nov 4, 2004
2,613
71
1,260
UK
#2
Well first up, Nintendo don't set pricing for third-party games.

And secondly, the Eternal Collection isn't six years old, as it's a collection of the original game, the Reaper of Souls expansion, plus the Necromancer DLC, the latter of which was only released last year.

And finally, it's $60 on PS4 and XB1 too.

So the question you should be asking is "Why are Activision-Blizzard charging $60 for Diablo 3 and all it's DLC?", and the obvious answer is because sufficient numbers of people will be willing to pay that much.

If they stick to a similar cadence for sale pricing as the other platform versions, it'll probably be half off on a fairly regular basis, though (ie, just check the price history for the Xbox version).
 
Jan 7, 2018
301
263
210
#10
Also Nintendo's WiiU ports are over priced, really puts me off the machine I plan on getting for xmas. Around £30 they should be not £50 the same price as red dead 2 and new releases here in the UK. Plus Nintendo games never really go on sale. It doesn't cost the same to port a game then it does to actually make it. Donkey kong tropical freeze should have at least had donkey kong Returns on card aswell. I'm planning on renting any games I think are over priced.
 
Last edited:
Jan 28, 2009
3,510
130
755
#13
Because Nintendo is the spidered-man and you are the brave J Johna Jameson, here to spread the liberating light of truth upon the spidered-man and cast them unto hell.

Even though the person who blew up the bank vault was some idiot wearing a fish bowl over their head.
 
Last edited:

Golgo 13

The Man With The Golden Dong
Jun 14, 2014
3,658
339
455
#14
Yep, just greed. In business theory, you always ask for the most money because the worst that can happen is you get a "no", then you go lower.

So Activision is just asking for the most money first, if not very many people say "yes", then they'll lower it. Can't really blame them for trying (at the same time I admit it's annoying to essentially be charged full price for a 6 year old game and some expansions).
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,430
1,470
340
Moore Park Beach
#16
I thought this would be a great game to try out for my new Nintendo Switch...but come on....60 frickin bucks?
Because they can charge that much.

And once the industry can get rid of this silly "physical copy" abomination and ALL games are digital download ONLY, then
on all consoles all games will be full price for ever. Never again will you see bargain bins, never again will you be able to trade in old games
to offset the cost of new games. Never again will you be able to buy pre-owned games.

This is where we are going. A lot of gamers want this and celebrate this. I have enough backlog of physical games to not worry.
This wont happen tomorrow and I wont live forever so I am good. Are you?
 
Oct 21, 2014
839
336
325
#17
The Nintendo Tax.

If not that, then Blizzard are setting the price.

Which, if you look at the fact that they are releasing a F2P game, they will need the extra income from a proper game, ie a console game. Because F2P games make no money at all whatsoever ever, and also mobile games are shite.

Hail Nintendo and their pricing.

/s
 
Last edited:
Likes: Killer751
Oct 9, 2014
179
28
280
#20
Well, rejoice then. You can get on both systems for $30 on Amazon.
Didn't know people would still buy games on Microsoft / PS4 store unless it is for an exclusive and digital version of a game.

Edit: But yeah, I hear you. If you want to go all digital... There is no other choice nor price.
 
Last edited:

120v

Member
Mar 14, 2013
9,402
225
455
#21
a little up there but you're getting the full package for a new platform.

switch not being 1:1 parity with "current gen" i'd guess it wasn't the easiest port. certainly not the hardest either but it wasn't an overnight effort
 
Last edited:
Mar 26, 2013
1,818
663
420
www.twitch.tv
#22
I was going to say something snarky but after " I'll just do a couple of rifts before bed" turned into a 4 hour gaming session , instead I am going to say this sum bitch worth it! To me at least, of course
 
Likes: pramod

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
8,180
1,160
595
#27
Because they can charge that much.

And once the industry can get rid of this silly "physical copy" abomination and ALL games are digital download ONLY, then
on all consoles all games will be full price for ever. Never again will you see bargain bins, never again will you be able to trade in old games
to offset the cost of new games. Never again will you be able to buy pre-owned games.

This is where we are going. A lot of gamers want this and celebrate this. I have enough backlog of physical games to not worry.
This wont happen tomorrow and I wont live forever so I am good. Are you?
No dude. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Even in an all digital futures, there will still be plenty of sales to entice people to buy games at "too good to pass up" prices.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
12,796
920
1,700
#32
No dude. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Even in an all digital futures, there will still be plenty of sales to entice people to buy games at "too good to pass up" prices.
Just like cutting out the middleman and all the production and shipping and inventory costs, etc... was supposed to be a whole bunch of savings passed on to consumers and we are actually now paying more sometimes for the digital copy than the boxed disc/cartridge option (as they figured out they do not need to pass the savings onto people and actually charge them more for the convenience)?
 
Last edited:
Likes: pramod
Nov 19, 2006
5,301
1,215
995
46
West Springfield, MA
www.youtube.com
#33
It’s $59 on all consoles for the eternal collection.
If you’re buying digitally, perhaps... but GaneStop, Best Buy, & Walmart are selling it at $40 for PS4/XBO, and Target has it for generally $30 for the same platforms.

Switch pricing will come down to $40 after a little bit of time. As with any game, impatient people will gladly pay $20+ more because they can’t wait.
 

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
8,180
1,160
595
#34
Just like cutting out the middleman and all the production and shipping and inventory costs, etc... was supposed to be a whole bunch of savings passed on to consumers and we are actually now paying more sometimes for the digital copy than the boxed disc/cartridge option (as they figured out they do not need to pass the savings onto people and actually charge them more for the convenience)?
Nobody ever promised this. Everyone knew that digital games were always going to cost the same as the store games. The only people that thought that were people with no background or knowledge of economics. Digital games provide you with convenience and easier impulse buys. Nothing more.
 

Fbh

Member
Dec 6, 2013
10,225
2,037
580
#35
Nintendo doesn't set the price of third party games.

As to why it's $60. It's the same on other platforms and blizzard games tend to hold their prices for longer. The question here is if it's going to go on sale as frequently as on other platforms (at least on PS4 I've seen it for like $30 plenty of times).

Also, most publishers see that Switch users are willing to pay higher prices. When you see an audience not just being ok with a $60 port of a 4 years old $50 game (Tropical Freeze) but also coming out and defending the pricing then you start charging accordingly. That's why Skyrim and doom are still $60 and why Square is charging $50 for the port of a game they released 10 years ago for $40 (the world ends with you)
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
12,796
920
1,700
#36
Nobody ever promised this. Everyone knew that digital games were always going to cost the same as the store games. The only people that thought that were people with no background or knowledge of economics. Digital games provide you with convenience and easier impulse buys. Nothing more.
This is, IMHO, quite revisionist history at best and corporate apology at worst, depending on how it is meant and how it is taken.
Are you seriously telling me that there was no expectations that a MASSIVE reduction in risk (inventory and manufacturing planning too) and in costs (production, shipping, and storing) would lower game prices instead of increasing them?!?
 
Jun 21, 2013
284
129
330
Montpellier
#40
Why should games prices devalue with time ? There is no rule that says things get automatically cheaper as they get older.
The price reflect what the market will bear, Activision Blizzard made their calculation which you don't agree with, feel free to wait until it gets cheaper.
 
Jun 5, 2011
5,321
816
470
#42
Because they can charge that much.

And once the industry can get rid of this silly "physical copy" abomination and ALL games are digital download ONLY, then
on all consoles all games will be full price for ever. Never again will you see bargain bins, never again will you be able to trade in old games
to offset the cost of new games. Never again will you be able to buy pre-owned games.

This is where we are going. A lot of gamers want this and celebrate this. I have enough backlog of physical games to not worry.
This wont happen tomorrow and I wont live forever so I am good. Are you?
Talk about trying to dramatize things just because you don't like digital purchases. If anything prices will go down so that they no longer have to feel pressured from retailers. Isn't it ironic that the PC platform which is mainly digital has lower prices on average? Why were games 30 years ago only $10 less than they are today when far more people work on those titles now than back then? Going to blame digital on that too?

Short answer why they charge $60 for an older title is because they can. Long answer is its new in Switch and comes with additional content.
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
12,796
920
1,700
#43
We are talking about Diablo here though, and its price is set by Acitvision, not Nintendo.
Dark Souls was 40 bucks.
We are talking about what the market can bear and the Switch market is happy to buy ports (some great, some with debatable cuts see DOOM 2016) at a pretty premium price. All the success stories from first and third party developers doing that just encourage more to do the same.

Dark Souls at $40 was lambasted by Xbox One and PS4 users alike because, although it had a new lighting system + some upgraded textures and effects + rendered at 1800p/4K + smooth 60 FPS framerate, it was compared to the Crash Bandicoot remastered edition that bundled 3 games at the same price... yet, on Switch it came and was bought with much less of a fuss by the player base. A "but I can play console games on the go" feat Sony failed to capitalise with the PS Vita (albeit they were getting real close, it should have waited a few more years and pack a bit more punch though... and fix other issues ;)).
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
12,796
920
1,700
#45
If anything prices will go down so that they no longer have to feel pressured from retailers
Again... like they should have dropped because of reduced risk and costs and increased instead? Not to rile you and @JohnnyFootball up, but I see the same kind of rhetoric as we used to get back then and nothing really pushing back against some genuine worries when we are fully into a "licensed not sold" model where games can disappear from your library at any time (recent-ish famous example: the two Monkey Island remastered editions from the Apple iOS App Store...).
 
Jan 27, 2014
417
153
330
#46
I call BS if you think Nintendo has nothing to do with pricing these games.
They have all (Doom, Wolfenstein, Skyrim) been ~ $20 on other, more powerful consoles.
It is no coincidence that they come out on Switch at all $60.
Not a single one tried $40?

But to answer the question, why are they charging $60 for a six year old game?
Because some lemming, moron, sheep, stooge, mark will pay it.

Everytime you pay $60 for $20 games, you are saying it is ok, keep doing it.
 

DonF

Member
Jul 10, 2017
1,911
1,355
255
#47
Nintendo Tax, I hate it. I haven't owned a nintendo console since the n64. I play mostly on ps4, but also own a competent pc and had a 360 last gen.
I love digital, the convenience of having all my games on my hdd, changing from one game to the next. Also the fact that you can get great prices on somewhat old games.

I loved the concept of the switch so I got one and a nice 128 gb sd card. Oh boy I wasn't prepared for e shop prices.
 
Oct 10, 2017
281
148
180
#49
If you’re buying digitally, perhaps... but GaneStop, Best Buy, & Walmart are selling it at $40 for PS4/XBO, and Target has it for generally $30 for the same platforms.

Switch pricing will come down to $40 after a little bit of time. As with any game, impatient people will gladly pay $20+ more because they can’t wait.
So? That’s up to those stores and whatever deal they worked out with thier distributors. That’s has nothing to do with Nintendo.