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

#52
I saw some Nintendo fans talking about this subject as they were glad that Nintendo almost never dropped the prices of their 1st party games because they would never get frustrated to see that price dropping in a near future an feeling regretful for buying the damn game at launch. Now this is some serious mental gymnastics.
 
#53
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.
Porting isn't. Free.
 
#54
Why not? People paid $60 for this:


Yes, the reasonable thing to do would be selling it for a discounted price, but why do that when a flock of diehard Nintendo fans are going to buy it at full price?
 
#56
Strike two on the console warring posts...surely there’s a way you can express yourself without this nonsense, right?
Because people who use a Switch as their primary console are fucking **** so why not charge them and bleed them more. I say it's too affordable, they should rise the price more for 10 years old games.
 
#58
The game is not small. Tons of characters on screen, massive number of attacks and spells, animations, effects...etc...To make it work so well on the Switch and runs great is a feat. The time and money spent on this port was not small I'm sure. In this case I am happy to pay full price. I can't say the same for some others. For example....I LOVE Moonlighter and wanted the physical version but I cannot bring myself to pay $35.00 for that. It's an indie game and I'm sure was easy to port. That seems high. $25? sure, maybe but a lot of indies are like that. $59 for Diablo 3? Definitely!!!
 
Last edited:
#60
rather than complain you can buy a copy for your computer or whatever. of course you won't be able to play it portably, but that's what you are missing when you skip a Switch release.

i don't get why $60 is too expensive for people. when i was a kid my parents spent that much on 16 bit games and that was the 90s, when $60 was worth around $90 in today's money. you aren't entitled to a cheap price just because it's an old game. at any rate it's utterly useless to complain about pricing.
 
#62
Not Nintendo here. But they charge you 60€ for the four year old DKCTF and Mario Kart 8, they charge you 40€ for the 16 year old Luigi's Mansion, they charge you (...)

The reason probably is that people are willing to pay that amount of money for old news.
Ill give you DKTF, its bullshit thats $60 when the og was only $50 (and now $20)

but others like mk8 and hyrule warriors are atleast understandable because theyre $60 up-ported goty editions of games that are still $60 for the base titles w/o dlc
 
#64
Wait for a price-drop, then.

I've been overpaying for copies of Minecraft for a decade: I bought a PC key for ~$15 right after Survival mode launched, and I've paid more than that every time I've purchased it again for Vita, for PS3, for PS4, for Wii U, and for Switch.

Oh! Why are these companies overcharging me!! :messenger_pouting:
 
#68
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.
Maybe you are, but i was commenting on the OP, and that is about Diablo.

But I agree with you that people appear to be willing to buy full priced ports for switch.
 
Last edited:
#69
Maybe you are, but i was commenting on the OP, and that is about Diablo.

But I agree with you that people appear to be willing to buy full priced ports for switch.
How's that thing that people get when they expend lots of money and they convince themselves it's the greatest thing they ever paid for?
 
#71
How's that thing that people get when they expend lots of money and they convince themselves it's the greatest thing they ever paid for?
Depends on the personal value the game has for each person. I myself have to admit that i bought a few WiiU Ports for Switch.
Yes, they could have been cheaper, but since i didnt own all of them on WiiU before it was like when the game gets newly released. So i didnt care too much. I skipped Dark Souls for 40 though, and i wont buy Diablo either, or any 3rd party port above 30€ for that matter.
 
Last edited:
#73
Diablo 3 is one of the few games out there that is worth $60 to me. Blizzard has always been great in supporting it. That said, I waited for a sale and picked up D3 for $30. Simply because I knew it was going to go on sale soon and I could wait. On other platforms games start high and drop fairly quick with sales even if its only for a limited time. This lets pubs cash in on the people who need it day one and the bargain hunters relatively early in the games life. This is how these companies make their money, nothing wrong with that, especially considering good of a port it is. Nintendo doesn't do this. Since I don't have a Switch Im not sure about 3rd parties. Do they have a set day for sales, whats the history of 3rd party games going on sale? If so wait a bit.
 
#74
Funny how so many are defending nintendo here (because it is activision game) and forgetting how nintendo almost always charges full price on their games even if they are ports/5y old.

My friend owns game store and he says that while sony/ms drops their prices after weeks/months, Nintendo almost never drops em + their prices are 5-10€ higher than others at launch.

Like ps4 game costs 50€ to him, and switch game costs 55-60€.

Nintendo is greediest company of the three, always charging max prive for lowest quality parts and old games.
 

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
#75
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?!?
Do you have any hard evidence that it’s a MASSIVE reduction in costs? People don’t seem to recognize that keeping digital content on massive amounts of servers is a significant cost as well.
 
#77
Funny how so many are defending nintendo here (because it is activision game) and forgetting how nintendo almost always charges full price on their games even if they are ports/5y old.

My friend owns game store and he says that while sony/ms drops their prices after weeks/months, Nintendo almost never drops em + their prices are 5-10€ higher than others at launch.

Like ps4 game costs 50€ to him, and switch game costs 55-60€.

Nintendo is greediest company of the three, always charging max prive for lowest quality parts and old games.
No lies detected. The switch tax is real.

On PS4 look at Crash Bandicoot, Wipeout, the Yakuza remakes, or Shadow of the Colossus. All of those were incredible value at great prices.

Tropical Freeze? $60
Captain Toad? $60
LA Noire? $50
 
#78
I feel like they should all be giving us an incentive to buy digital, I understand the cost of catridges drives up the cost of the game a bit but if you buy digital you should be getting it drastically cheaper.
 
#79
Because it still had to be developed which is expensive. Of course, you could debatte over the price tag (or how expensive it really was to port it), but that has nothing to do with the age of the game. Also keep in mind that a price tag is the result of the market and its demand. New game release (not new games per se) usually cost 60 bucks, so they will try it. They will lower the price quickly when sales are low, I guess.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
#81
Why not? People paid $60 for this:


Yes, the reasonable thing to do would be selling it for a discounted price, but why do that when a flock of diehard Nintendo fans are going to buy it at full price?
Is that from Docked/Portable or what? Sorry, i have a tendency to enter a stance of doubt when shots like these are thrown in that don't explain with what and how they were made.

Also @pramod what did you think of @arhra's post? You haven't participated in your own thread and i think that first post actually covers a lot of grounds. What do you think of it?

Personally i assumed its because of:
  • Popularity. And its also a collection.
  • Cartridges are naturally more expensive.
  • Its Activision.
 
#83
.
Nintendo is greediest company of the three, always charging max prive for lowest quality parts and old games.
It's not really greed though. If they were charging $60 and no one was buying the games then they'd drop the prices. But if you have people lining up to buy a port of a several years old game for full price then why would you charge less? Most companies will always charge the highest amount their customers are willing to pay, and Nintendo customers just have a higher margin

I think in a way it's because Nintendo platforms tend to be more exclusive driven. Lots of people buy them to play stuff like Zelda, Mario and Smash and most new Switch owners will pick up at least one of those games regardless of the price, so why charge less?. That has created an audience that's used to old games being expensive, and third parties have started to take notice.

Other consoles and PC are more third party dominated and have way more high profile releases. Higher competition tends to drive prices down, and since most months tend to have at least 1 big release older games have to drop faster. Because if there's constantly brand new $60 games why would you spend the same for something that's 2-3 years old?

Diablo on Switch right now has to compete with indies and a bunch of full prices Nintendo games.
If they just released a, for example, Ps4 port now it would be competing with RDR2, AC Odyssey, Spiderman, COD, Hitman, Battlefield, etc and a whole bunch of 6 months old AAA games for $30 and older games for even less.
 
Last edited:
#85
Nintendo charged your $60 for DKC TF on the Switch. The original on the Wii U started off at $50. Get used to it. Corporations aren't your friend.
 
#86
I like lots of Nintendo products but their pricing structure is BS. They vastly over price their 1st party games years after release and don't have near the amount of deals as ps and xbone. Don't even talk about the lack of virtual console on the switch and the willingness of some people to buy SMB3 for the tenth time for $15
 
#88
I saw some Nintendo fans talking about this subject as they were glad that Nintendo almost never dropped the prices of their 1st party games because they would never get frustrated to see that price dropping in a near future an feeling regretful for buying the damn game at launch. Now this is some serious mental gymnastics.
I never understood this mindset. Someone else being able to buy a game at a lower price months/years after you bought your copy doesn't benefit you at all. You got to enjoy your game at a price you felt was fair when you paid for it, that price doesn't suddenly become unfair because of someone else's experience.

The REAL reason Nintendo doesn't drop their prices is because they know people buying a new Nintendo system will still pay premium prices for Nintendo games when they buy it. You can sell Mario Kart or Zelda for $60 years later because new system owners will keep buying it at that price when they pick up a new console.

However, I'd think something like Diablo could benefit from some higher attach rates to new console sales by selling at a lower price, and also those of us who have already purchased Diablo 3 (twice, in my instance on PC and Xbox) would be much more inclined to buy it again on Switch if we didn't have to shell out another $60.
 
#89
Is that from Docked/Portable or what?
Don't remember, I grabbed it from another forum.
Sorry, i have a tendency to enter a stance of doubt when shots like these are thrown in that don't explain with what and how they were made.
lol what? What exactly is there to doubt? I'm not the first or only person to document how blurry/low res Wolfenstein 2 looks on Switch. Even Doom suffers from it to a degree. A simple google search will free you of your "stance of doubt".
 
Last edited:
#94
Greedy folks will be greedy. It's the exact reason i didn't buy No Man's Sky on Xbox. People paid $60 to start. Lots of folks got refunds. I kept mine Those who stayed got free updates. Game became old. Game releases on xbox one for $50-$60 dollars (can't remember the exact price right now). Promises 4k...blah blah blah. Then I look at PS4.
So lemme get this straight. If I skipped out on No Man's Sky and I'm on Playstation, I could buy the entire game, dlc and all, for $19.99. However if I want it on my Xbox...it's $50-$60?

No thanks, you're not that important.
 
#95
A little story from an eternity ago. When I got my N64 in 1996, the KB Toys was out of Mario 64. So I had a system with no game.

My late grandma, bless her heart, was willing to dump $100 on the game for me when we found it at Funcoland.

Why was it $100 and not $60? Well, because it was an in-demand item and clearly, people were willing to pay $100 because even my grandmother was willing to pay it for this game.

Was it right to increase the price of the game because people were willing to pay, or did Funcoland violate any principle of fairness by taking this upon themselves?

I share this story to demonstrate that there are principles beyond what people are willing to pay and supply/demand. For such reasons, I would propose that, for example, DK Tropical Freeze's pricing is wrong being higher than the WiiU version.

Sure, people seem willing to pay for it, but the dynamic changes from "pay us or don't get the game" to "get taken advantage of like a sucker, or don't get the game".

For this reason, I have left many WiiU ports on the shelf, even ones I would happily buy AGAIN even though I already have the original.

By the way, I sell products daily that I create personally with my own hard work to a loyal base of clients due to my emphasis on fairness. I can make good money without treating the customer like a chump. This is not armchair theory, I'm talking about principles that have helped me be a success. I would never do what Funcoland did.
 
#96
Greedy folks will be greedy. It's the exact reason i didn't buy No Man's Sky on Xbox. People paid $60 to start. Lots of folks got refunds. I kept mine Those who stayed got free updates. Game became old. Game releases on xbox one for $50-$60 dollars (can't remember the exact price right now). Promises 4k...blah blah blah. Then I look at PS4.
So lemme get this straight. If I skipped out on No Man's Sky and I'm on Playstation, I could buy the entire game, dlc and all, for $19.99. However if I want it on my Xbox...it's $50-$60?

No thanks, you're not that important.
You are mixing suggested retail pricing to sales elsewhere and it sounds to me like you are using Steam pricing because when it came out the PS4 version was not $20 for everything on PSN. That to me is the fairest way to compare what is the price on PSN compared. Not some sale on Amazon or Steam for the PC.


But again this practice happens all the time. The Last of Us remaster was priced much higher than the PS3 version but new PS3 games that concurrently release on PS4 are the same price. Mass Effect and Oblivion and Bioshock came out later on the PS3 but full price as well. That's because to them its a new title but many of these examples show price reductions very quickly.
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
#97
Don't remember, I grabbed it from another forum.
Then how are we supposed to know if that picture is actually representative? :messenger_confused:

This does not help your original comment either as you effectively now used it as an example of how that version looks, but you don't know if that is how it actually looks.

lol what? What exactly is there to doubt?
Since you don't know in which situation that picture was taken, we cannot verify if this is representative.

Nobody is going to reason that Wolf Switch is a sharp game. It is blurry, not helped by its AA implementation, but if you are going to use screenshots like these to make a point, make it one that represents the console properly. For all we know it could also be a texture failing to load in. Unlikely, but given Id's tech, it is not unplausible.

Which is why you would want those details.

I'm not the first or only person to document how blurry/low res Wolfenstein 2 looks on Switch. Even Doom suffers from it to a degree. A simple google search will free you of your "stance of doubt".
Yeah, but that's not why i said what i said. Because your example lacks details, its why i said that i tend to enter a stance of doubt: Who is to say it was a deliberate picking? In this case it would make little sense considering the core look of the game

Except games on other platforms... lol.
There is no point in making that remark.
 
#98
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.
Your nonsensical ranting is the only moronic thing here. Smh

It's called value proposition and judging someone over how they spend their money is ridiculous. I have a $20 Doom for PS4 but spent $60 for Doom Switch to play anywhere, namely on my porch while my dog plays.

Nintendo is a business, as in for money, not friends; If you had something you could sell for $60 to thousands of people would you say "No $40 please"? I agree with the sentiment they should be cheaper but I'm not mad at the hussle, nor do I mock those who see value and buy these games accordingly

Wait for a price drop. Or ignore them altogether. Your old games still play the same so go play them.
 
Last edited:
#99
Because contrary to popular belief, you don't just hit ctrl-c, ctrl-v to get a game ported to another platform. They had to pay people salaries to do the work involved in porting Diablo 3 to Switch.

If you think it's not worth the price, don't buy it or wait for a sale. It will no doubt go on sale sooner or later.
Well now wait a minute, porting isn't free but surely it's cheaper than making a new game.
 
I hate to defend this, because I feel Nintendo has been over-pricing on software for the Switch, and that's not a good precedent to show third parties.

But,... if the game can be taken on the go with a regular controller, it is a new experience. So I don't see why it's so shocking that they're trying to price it, as if it were a new game. This was done on Gameboy, and GBA, where the SNES ports got priced, as if they were new because it was a new experience on handheld.

That said, Nintendo definitely needs to be more careful with game pricing. I know this is third party related, though.
 
Last edited: