General Switch Discussion

[Ronnie]

1 hour ago, Hero-of-Time said:

His quote about reasonable prices is a bit iffy as well. I agree with a lot of what has been said elsewhere. It doesn't have to be a case of racing to the bottom but rather being reasonable in what you are charging. For a long time I haven't agreed with Nintendo's pricing of the games they have ported over to various systems. Stuff like Donkey Kong Kong Country Tropical Freeze and Mario Kart 8 being full price felt like an absolute slap in the face to those who had supported Nintendo during the Wii U years. Nintendo knew they could get away with charging full price for it ( sales have shown this to be true ) and instead of rewarding those who kept them afloat during the rough years, they essentially stabbed them in the back to make a profit.

I'll never understand this "Nintendo should reward people who bought our games in the past" thing. From my point of view, playing the games is reward enough, I had a great time with MK8 on Wii U and they're aren't forcing anyone to buy the same game twice, so why should they charge a discount rate just to appeal to people who have already bought the game? MK8 is the same MK8 as on Wii U, in fact it's even better with the DLC already added. Why charge less?

 

1 hour ago, Hero-of-Time said:

For comparison, just look at something like the Kingdom Hearts collection by S-E. This has 4 massive games on it that has improved visuals, improved framerate, more content than the original release and a couple of movies to fill in the gaps of the story. This was launched at £30. Shadow of the Colossus is another game that had another makeover and launched at a budget price,. Ratchet and Clank, Crash Bandicoot Collection, Spyro Collection, Master Chief Collection, all of these of examples of games that have been remade for fans and new owners alike but gave value for money and didn't try to exploit their fan bases.

Probably because they know selling those games at full price won't get many sales, unlike Nintendo first party games.

Just because other publishers heavily discount games two weeks after release or put out a GOTY edition 6-12 months later at half price doesn't mean 1. it's healthy for the industry (it really, really isn't) and 2. Nintendo have to do it as well.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Ronnie

[Hero-of-Time]

1 minute ago, Ronnie said:

I'll never understand this "Nintendo should reward people who bought our games in the past" thing. From my point of view, playing the games is reward enough, I had a great time with MK8 on Wii U and they're aren't forcing anyone to buy the same game twice, so why should they charge a discount rate just to appeal to people who have already bought the game? MK8 is the same MK8 as on Wii U, in fact it's even better with the DLC already added so I really don't see a

A what, Ronnie? Tell me!!!!

1 minute ago, Ronnie said:

Probably because they know full price games won't sell, Nintendo games do. Just because other publishers heavily discount games two weeks after release or put out a GOTY edition 6-12 months later at half price doesn't mean 1. it's healthy for the industry (it really, really isn't) and 2. Nintendo have to do it as well.

None of the games I mentioned are GOTY versions or were heavily discounted soon after launch. You can't tell me that Activision couldn't have charged full price for Crash if they wanted to? The thing has sold gangbusters and they could have easily gouged our eyes out for the 3 game collection. Master Chief Collection was full price and included a bunch of games. Granted, the servers were a mess but that's beside the point.  I imagine most of the games, if not all, that I mentioned would have sold well at full price. Nintendo get away with it because they know can. They have an extraordinary pull on people, myself included. Hell, just look at Starlink that is coming out. Nintendo fans ( again, myself included ) didn't give a toss about it when it was announced but as soon as Starfox was added to it then all of a sudden people want it.

[drahkon]

7 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

Hell, just look at Starlink that is coming out. Nintendo fans ( again, myself included ) didn't give a toss about it when it was announced but as soon as Starfox was added to it then all of a sudden people want it.

So do you want it now, you Starfox whore?

I'm sorry, I'm just really bored at work.

[Ronnie]

3 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

The thing has sold gangbusters and they could have easily gouged our eyes out for the 3 game collection.

They had no idea how much it would sell and so priced it conservatively. You can guarantee they'd have charged full price if they knew the crazy numbers it would sell.

Shadow of the Colossus was probably sold at a reduced rate because Sony suspected the typical PS4 install base would balk at being charged full price for a 10-15 year old game.

It's somewhat comforting to know that when I buy Mario Odyssey at launch it won't be half price 6 months later. Otherwise I might wait, like I do with a lot of PS4 games.

[Hero-of-Time]

9 minutes ago, drahkon said:

So do you want it now, you Starfox whore?

I'm sorry, I'm just really bored at work.

If it plays like Zero then hell no!

8 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

It's somewhat comforting to know that when I buy Mario Odyssey at launch it won't be half price 6 months later. Otherwise I might wait, like I do with a lot of PS4 games.

So you'd rather buy a game knowing that it would never drop in price over waiting for a bit and paying less? Do you get comfort out of this due to being able to trade it in at a decent rate? I'm not sure what else could give you comfort in this instance other than that.  

On the other consoles you tend to get rewarded for your patience, whereas on Nintendo platforms you may as well buy the games at launch because, outside of a few examples, the games will remain that price for the duration of the hardwares lifespan. Even something like God of War, a game that is still selling stupidly well, got a price cut last month. It's still selling, the publisher didn't have to drop it's price but it's good of the consumer. People, especially in the UK, like a bargain.

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by Hero-of-Time

[Fierce_LiNk]

Just to offer a slightly different take on the discussion surrounding subscription services, particularly with the part Miyamoto mentioned about the music industry. For my post, I'm mainly going to talk about it from the music perspective because that's where I have the most knowledge and experience of:

I was there during the rise (and fall in usage) of sites such as Napster, Kazaa and all that. At the time, you could walk into your HMV store and find albums with a RRP of up to £15. In some cases, maybe slightly more than that. That's a looooot of money to pay for music, so I used to find that I'd walk into HMV, browse the album selection, and walk straight back out. I remember it became a joke amongst other internet users that HMV was the type of store that you'd never actually buy anything from! I went through a period of at least four or five years where I didn't purchase a single album due to the cost being too high...so my interest in music waned. 

So, it's a no brainer that many turned to downloading the music illegally. This was just before the big internet shopping boom took off. At home, you could have access to any album, by any band, for free. For many teenagers or people in their early twenties who were perhaps still studying or earning very little money early on in their careers, £15 to spend on one solitary album is a lot of money to spend. The downside, of course, is the lack of money going to the artist and people behind the album. How much of that £15 album fee goes back to the original recording artist anyway? I always remember that being one for debate. I used to download a few tracks here and there and even remember my first time using Napster. Tbh, I didn't really enjoy doing it this way because it felt like "cheating". There was nothing satisfying about downloading a song by, say, U2 and looking at the file name being "WIth or WITHOUT YOU GOOD QUALITY REAL VERSION". I wanted to enjoy music, discover new music, but the price point was just ridiculously too high. I remember this amazing, amazing quote from Dave Grohl who said that music should be made available to all who want to listen to it. So, it's about making it accessible to the audience. If you make the price point too high, you're making it inaccessible to many. If it's limited formats, then it's inaccessible, too. I've met and known tons and tons of people who used to download excessively mainly due to the points that I mentioned. The thing is that they were fans, many were hardcore and would follow tours or go to tons of live shows. They were downloading because they wanted the music. The issue was purely the price point and the accessibility. 

Ultimately, it comes down to three key points:

1. People want to have the ability to access a large catalogue of music in a range of formats. Having it solely on a CD is a bit limiting. Nobody wanted albums on tape, either. What's great about buying an album but not being album to listen to it in your car because you don't have a CD/Tape player? Nothing is great about that.

2. People want to pay that "magic price point" - that Goldilocks zone where it isn't too expensive so that they can spend the money on other essential goods.

3. People ultimately (the fans in particular) want to support the artist who is responsible for the music. You buy the music because you like the music, but you always want to show your support for that artist. There's a synergy between fans and artists, which is evident at live shows. One of my favourite ever live performances was seeing The Flaming Lips, purely because of the way that they get the crowd going. You buy the album, you go to the live shows, because you want to show your support and experience the music in a multitude of ways.

Streaming came along and it has changed everything. You can access it across a number of devices, so that settles point number 1. I can access the same playlist on my laptop when I'm working. I can then access the exact same playlist or album on my phone when I'm exercising, or in the car on the way to work, or on my PS4 when I'm gaming. I could only dream of that as a kid! For point number 2, a Spotify subscription costs £9.99 or something close to that...for you to be able to access EVERYTHING on the platform. That is insanely good value for money. Point number 3 is the debatable one, as it is still is questionable how much of the fee goes to the original recording artist. The other side of the coin is that it can act as a gateway to introduce people to new music that they never would have come across. I could list you 100+ bands or artists that I am now aware of through Spotify that I would not have been beforehand, which could then lead to supporting them at live venues or festivals, which is another avenue for making money. 

The world is moving towards streaming and subscription based services. Ultimately, this is healthy as it shows that people DO want to pay for their goods. They just want to ensure that those three points are addressed beforehand, especially the accessibility. Netflix is, imo, great value for money and it is so, so accessible. It's also about the way that music and other forms of entertainment are consumed. People no longer want to be dictated to by live tv schedules, or what song is playing on the radio. Choice is very good for the consumer. I've heard people talk about a Virtual Console service similar to Netflix and, yeah, provided the price point was right, it's something that I imagine will interest many.

[Sheikah]

54 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

I'll never understand this "Nintendo should reward people who bought our games in the past" thing. From my point of view, playing the games is reward enough, I had a great time with MK8 on Wii U and they're aren't forcing anyone to buy the same game twice, so why should they charge a discount rate just to appeal to people who have already bought the game? MK8 is the same MK8 as on Wii U, in fact it's even better with the DLC already added. Why charge less?

Nearly everyone charges less for recycled/ported/remastered games and it's not hard to see why. They haven't made the game from scratch the second time round so it costs just a fraction of the original game development to put it out on Switch. If it's costing them a lot less money, it makes sense that some of this saving should be passed onto the consumer. There is also the fact it's essentially an old game, and people expect prices to go down (as they should). If you look at any eshop prices for old generation games it's almost always cheaper than it cost back when it launched.

[Ronnie]

25 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

So you'd rather buy a game knowing that it would never drop in price over waiting for a bit and paying less? Do you get comfort out of this due to being able to trade it in at a decent rate? I'm not sure what else could give you comfort in this instance other than that.

I get comfort knowing that I can buy it as soon as I want it, not be forced to wait for a price drop just to save a few quid. I held off buying Shadow of the Tomb Raider for a year before buying it at bargain basement prices, same with Battlefront II, it's at £15 at the moment, I'll probably buy it now. It's doing the industry no favours.

30 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

On the other consoles you tend to get rewarded for your patience, whereas on Nintendo platforms you may as well buy the games at launch because, outside of a few examples, the games will remain that price for the duration of the hardwares lifespan. Even something like God of War, a game that is still selling stupidly well, got a price cut last month. It's still selling, the publisher didn't have to drop it's price but it's good of the consumer. People, especially in the UK, like a bargain.

"rewarded for your patience"? I'm not sure what that even means mate. Publishers aren't rewarding people to wait and pay bargain prices for their games, they're lowering prices because that's what that side of the industry has made the norm. A game is a game, games should be worth their price tag. You see so many publishers talk about how their big AAA game sold 3 millions but that still wasn't enough and so they're either shutting that studio down, not making more games in that series, or injecting microtransactions, DLC and season passes to try and recoup the extra cost, cost they lost by lowering the value of their own games.

I'll take Nintendo's approach any day, even if it puts me out of pocket a bit more, it means I can buy games at launch and more importantly it means a healthy industry.

[Hero-of-Time]

Interesting read @Fierce_LiNk. Some of the points you made are ones that have recently been discussed elsewhere in regards to Nintendo going after emulation sites. Your 3 key points can easily be used for something like a virtual console service.

Quote

1. People want to have the ability to access a large catalogue of music in a range of formats. Having it solely on a CD is a bit limiting. Nobody wanted albums on tape, either. What's great about buying an album but not being album to listen to it in your car because you don't have a CD/Tape player? Nothing is great about that.

People want to have access to older games. A lot of the time it's just not an option to have a bunch of consoles lying around all over the place so having them all digitally means you can have access to a large library of games but only needing to using one device.

Quote

3. People ultimately (the fans in particular) want to support the artist who is responsible for the music. You buy the music because you like the music, but you always want to show your support for that artist. There's a synergy between fans and artists, which is evident at live shows. One of my favourite ever live performances was seeing The Flaming Lips, purely because of the way that they get the crowd going. You buy the album, you go to the live shows, because you want to show your support and experience the music in a multitude of ways.

This is such a good point. A lot of gamers would love to give their money to the developers/publishers but most of the time the money is left on the table and people have to seek other methods to actually play these games. If companies are going to close down such places then they need to offer an alternative option for people to access these games. 

[Ronnie]

3 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

There is also the fact it's essentially an old game, and people expect prices to go down (as they should)

Mario Kart 8 could be released now and it wouldn't feel dated in the slightest. It's an old game but it's still worth the price tag it released at. NES/SNES/N64 games, sure, obviously Nintendo aren't going to (and haven't) charged full price for those games that fit the term "old", but a port from last gen that holds up graphically and mechanically this gen (WITH bonus DLC thrown in) should absolutely cost a similar value. 

[Hero-of-Time]

Just now, Ronnie said:

I get comfort knowing that I can buy it as soon as I want it, not be forced to wait for a price drop just to save a few quid. I held off buying Shadow of the Tomb Raider for a year before buying it at bargain basement prices, same with Battlefront II, it's at £15 at the moment, I'll probably buy it now. It's doing the industry no favours.

"rewarded for your patience"? I'm not sure what that even means mate. Publishers aren't rewarding people to wait and pay bargain prices for their games, they're lowering prices because that's what that side of the industry has made the norm. A game is a game, games should be worth their price tag. You see so many publishers talk about how their big AAA game sold 3 millions but that still wasn't enough and so they're either shutting that studio down, not making more games in that series, or injecting microtransactions, DLC and season passes to try and recoup the extra cost, cost they lost by lowering the value of their own games.

I'll take Nintendo's approach any day, even if it puts me out of pocket a bit more, it means I can buy games at launch and more importantly it means a healthy industry.

You're not forced to wait for a price drop on any platform. You can buy it at full price if you wish. I mean, if your point of view is that it's so damaging to the industry, surely you should be buying all of your games at full price to help support it, right?

You're rewarded as a consumer in the sense that you save money. If you're happy to wait a bit for a game then the price should come down and you would get it for less. It's the same as the rest of the entertainment industry. Music, movies, books etc. all go down in price after release and if the consumer is happy to wait a while then they get a bargain. Hence me saying you get rewarded for your patience.

[Fierce_LiNk]

5 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

Interesting read @Fierce_LiNk. Some of the points you made are ones that have recently been discussed elsewhere in regards to Nintendo going after emulation sites. Your 3 key points can easily be used for something like a virtual console service.

People want to have access to older games. A lot of the time it's just not an option to have a bunch of consoles lying around all over the place so having them all digitally means you can have access to a large library of games but only needing to using one device.

This is such a good point. A lot of gamers would love to give their money to the developers/publishers but most of the time the money is left on the table and people have to seek other methods to actually play these games. If companies are going to close down such places then they need to offer an alternative option for people to access these games. 

I have no idea what the current Virtual Console options are on Switch, so I can't comment. But, I remember I bought two VC games on Wii (Sim City and Golden Axe) and have been a bit dubious about the whole thing since. Ideally, I want to be able to access my old games on my current console, but also know that I can access them on the next console and potentially the one after that. THAT should be the future. The whole point of buying Golden Axe was so that I didn't need my MegaDrive to play/access the game (since I already owned it, but the console is in Wales). Now...I've got two games locked behind old hardware that I'm no longer using. How is that progressive? I think many gamers want to experience the game but are hindered by the platform that it features on. Ideally, a virtual console would not be so tied in with the platform, like how Netflix can appear on many platforms. It's also important that it is the SAME service, and not a variation of it. If I can watch a tv show on my tv, I should be able to watch the exact same show on my tablet, phone, console, or a friend's tv if I log into my account there.

Nintendo miss the point sometimes with closing down these websites. The gamers clearly WANT to play these games, otherwise they wouldn't go to all of this trouble to do so. I think it is so important that these big companies keep in touch with what the fans want. If a thousand gamers started downloading, say, Lufia and the Fortress of Doom from a filesharing website, that should be telling them something. Gamers are ultimately fans who just want to experience new and old forms of gaming. 

[Hero-of-Time]

38 minutes ago, Fierce_LiNk said:

I have no idea what the current Virtual Console options are on Switch, so I can't comment. But, I remember I bought two VC games on Wii (Sim City and Golden Axe) and have been a bit dubious about the whole thing since. Ideally, I want to be able to access my old games on my current console, but also know that I can access them on the next console and potentially the one after that. THAT should be the future. The whole point of buying Golden Axe was so that I didn't need my MegaDrive to play/access the game (since I already owned it, but the console is in Wales). Now...I've got two games locked behind old hardware that I'm no longer using. How is that progressive? I think many gamers want to experience the game but are hindered by the platform that it features on. Ideally, a virtual console would not be so tied in with the platform, like how Netflix can appear on many platforms. It's also important that it is the SAME service, and not a variation of it. If I can watch a tv show on my tv, I should be able to watch the exact same show on my tablet, phone, console, or a friend's tv if I log into my account there.

Nintendo miss the point sometimes with closing down these websites. The gamers clearly WANT to play these games, otherwise they wouldn't go to all of this trouble to do so. I think it is so important that these big companies keep in touch with what the fans want. If a thousand gamers started downloading, say, Lufia and the Fortress of Doom from a filesharing website, that should be telling them something. Gamers are ultimately fans who just want to experience new and old forms of gaming. 

There are none.  Any purchases you made on the Wii and Wii U are now locked to those machines. If you want to play on the digital games you purchased then you'll have to set up the old consoles. Both Sony and Nintendo have massively dropped the ball with this kind of thing and there's only Microsoft who's trying to preserve their back catalogue.

[Sheikah]

48 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

I get comfort knowing that I can buy it as soon as I want it, not be forced to wait for a price drop just to save a few quid. I held off buying Shadow of the Tomb Raider for a year before buying it at bargain basement prices, same with Battlefront II, it's at £15 at the moment, I'll probably buy it now. It's doing the industry no favours.

But it's all meaningless really, whether the price drops or not later down the line you're still paying full whack if you buy it at launch. It's crazy to think that it's better if the price never drops just so you don't feel insecure that others might get a better deal later on. Dropping prices with time is a proven method to generate more sales after the diehard fans have long since paid full price, so it's an arrangement that benefits the developers too.

 

48 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

Mario Kart 8 could be released now and it wouldn't feel dated in the slightest. It's an old game but it's still worth the price tag it released at. NES/SNES/N64 games, sure, obviously Nintendo aren't going to (and haven't) charged full price for those games that fit the term "old", but a port from last gen that holds up graphically and mechanically this gen (WITH bonus DLC thrown in) should absolutely cost a similar value. 

I would argue it's not worth the price tag it originally released at, on account of it being an old game that pretty much looks the same as when it originally released. Indeed, it looks like a game that could release on Switch now but that says more about the modest graphical leap Nintendo took with the Switch rather than anything positive about what you're getting.

[Fierce_LiNk]

10 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

There are none.  Any purchases you made on the Wii and Wii U are now locked to those machines. If you want to play on the digital games you purchased then you'll have to set up the old consoles. Both Sony and Nintendo have massively dropped the ball with this kind of thing and there's only Microsoft who's trying to preserve their back catalogue.

Haha, ok then. Are there plans for a Switch VC?

Imo, it's only going to become easier when streaming in gaming really takes off. Ideally, you'd have a service that you sign up to and you use an account to log into and out of said service. The services works across a range of devices. E.g. you can sign up to Nintendo's VC, but this lets you sign into the Switch, the Switch's successor and also any additional hardware that Nintendo produce. Purchases are tied to the account. If you purchase Ocarina of Time, that purchase is tied to your account as long as you keep subscribing. You can then play that game on the hardware specified earlier by logging into the account.

Gaming is a bit more complex than music and tv due to the architecture involved. I know that's been a problem with the switch from PS2 to PS3 and then to PS4 hardware, with the change in architecture. The benefit of streaming is that it works independently of the hardware. The limiting factor of that is broadband speed. Broadband speeds are just not good enough in so many parts of the UK, so it's hindering gaming that respect. We also can't have a situation where hardware doesn't advance because it'll create BC issues because that just creates more issues at the other end of the scale. 

I've used PSNow and I found that it worked great for me, so I'm particularly excited about what that can mean for the future. It would be great if we could sign up to a service and have access to, say, all of the SEGA Saturn catalogue to then stream and play on multiple devices. 

[Hero-of-Time]

Just now, Fierce_LiNk said:

Haha, ok then. Are there plans for a Switch VC?

All that's on the cards at the moment is NES games that come with the online subscription.

[Fierce_LiNk]

5 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

All that's on the cards at the moment is NES games that come with the online subscription.

I've got tons of questions about that.

So, do you have to download the NES games to the system?

Which games are available to start with?

Are more added on a monthly basis? Or are there, say, 20 games available and it'll mainly be those 20 games for a long, long time?

Will games be taken off the service, on a rotational basis? 

If you've already downloaded the game and it is taken off the service, can you still play the game or do you still lose access?

If the Switch 2 comes out tomorrow, can I use the re-download the games with the subscription service on that? Or are they tied solely to the Switch?

What happens if I stop my subscription?

What happens if I stop and then restart?

Will games other than NES games be added?

[Hero-of-Time]

Just now, Fierce_LiNk said:

I've got tons of questions about that.

So, do you have to download the NES games to the system?

Which games are available to start with?

Are more added on a monthly basis?

Will games be taken off the service, on a rotational basis? 

If you've already downloaded the game and it is taken off the service, can you still play the game or do you still lose access?

If the Switch 2 comes out tomorrow, can I use the re-download the games with the subscription service on that? Or are they tied solely to the Switch?

What happens if I stop my subscription?

What happens if I stop and then restart?

Will games other than NES games be added?

Who the hell knows?  

[Fierce_LiNk]

Just now, Hero-of-Time said:

Who the hell knows?  

Hah, starting to get everyone's point about the lack of information now. Hmm. 

[Ronnie]

2 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

I mean, if your point of view is that it's so damaging to the industry, surely you should be buying all of your games at full price to help support it, right?

If publishers are going to give me a way of saving money then I'm going to do it, just as most people would. I do buy games like Detroit or God of War at launch, but ones I'm less keen to play I wait for the inevitable price slashing.

1 hour ago, Sheikah said:

I would argue it's not worth the price tag it originally released at, on account of it being an old game that pretty much looks the same as when it originally released. Indeed, it looks like a game that could release on Switch now but that says more about the modest graphical leap Nintendo took with the Switch rather than anything positive about what you're getting.

Mario Kart 8 doesn't look like an old game. It's one of the prettiest games in the industry at the moment, regardless of what the technological leap the Switch is or isn't. It doesn't play or look old, the gameplay holds up, the visuals hold up, so I don't see why it's not worth the original price tag.

[Sheikah]

7 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

Mario Kart 8 doesn't look like an old game. It's one of the prettiest games in the industry at the moment, regardless of what the technological leap the Switch is or isn't. It doesn't play or look old, the gameplay holds up, the visuals hold up, so I don't see why it's not worth the original price tag.

Well, because it's an old game. Regardless of whether it looks like it's from this time, it's not. I don't expect to pay full price for a game that hasn't cost Nintendo much to port or update in a minor way, that's just greed. By the same token, there are games being made right now that purposefully adopt NES or SNES-like graphics. That doesn't mean I expect to pay only 3 quid for them like SNES games on an eShop.

[Ronnie]

9 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Well, because it's an old game.

From your point of view.

10 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

I don't expect to pay full price for a game that hasn't cost Nintendo much to port or update in a minor way, that's just greed.

And that's just gamer entitlement.

You don't pay for something based on the difficulty it was to create, you base it on the value it offers you.

[Sheikah]

29 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

From your point of view.

It's 4 years old. It's not a game that's just come out, they haven't had to put a lot of effort in creating a game from scratch, so yeah, I don't expect to pay full price. Especially considering fans paid full price first time round. Nobody else does this with their ports/remasters except Nintendo (coincidentally, just got Shenmue I + II for 22 quid). Either Nintendo are sagelike visionaries in their practices or they are ripping people off.

Quote

And that's just gamer entitlement.

You don't pay for something based on the difficulty it was to create, you base it on the value it offers you.

I suppose in that case, you wouldn't mind paying 30 quid for each SNES game on the eShop? A SNES game might offer you tens of hours of enjoyment, and be one of the best games ever, so I suppose it would be ok if Nintendo charged you like this? Obviously they don't, but based on the justification you just gave, my example would be true in your case - no?

Nintendo charge 4-5 quid or whatever per SNES game because that's what people will put up with, and rightly so. For whatever reason Nintendo aren't listening to the people with these latest ports, or going by standard practice.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Sheikah

[Goron_3]

Ultimately, the cost of a product isn't determined by the value it is to buyer (although that would determine if they purchase it), it is determined by the value it is perceived to have in the market.

A Ralph Lauren polo top doesn't cost 10x the cost to make compared to your average H&M polo top, yet costs 10x the amount. It's the same for late ports of Nintendo titles. They could drop the cost by 20% and probably sell more copies, but Nintendo don't value their games as being anything less than full price.

[Sheikah]

5 minutes ago, Goron_3 said:

Ultimately, the cost of a product isn't determined by the value it is to buyer (although that would determine if they purchase it), it is determined by the value it is perceived to have in the market.

A Ralph Lauren polo top doesn't cost 10x the cost to make compared to your average H&M polo top, yet costs 10x the amount. It's the same for late ports of Nintendo titles. They could drop the cost by 20% and probably sell more copies, but Nintendo don't value their games as being anything less than full price.

Yeah, this is basically it. Nintendo view their software as the cream of the crop, and they're basically giving you the privilege of buying it from them.

I think they're more or less gunning for all they can get on account of the Wii U being a massive flop, meaning they still feel there's plenty of people it will be new to to warrant selling it at full price. Not that I personally value these ports at full price, mind.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Sheikah